SPAR has issued their official statement on the proposed ordinance changes outlined as part of the settlement agreement in the Ability Housing and Dept of Justice lawsuit. One item of note is this part:
QuoteThe draft changes to the overlay were made without the input of any community members, and apparently with limited – if any – input from the City's planning department.
Had City officials (Planning Dept, etc.) simply told the Springfield community members demanding that Ability Housing be denied their COU (which by the way, was to use a 12-unit apartment building as a 12-unit apartment building), there would have been no lawsuit, and no changes required to the Springfield overlay. What is everyone afraid of??
There is another community meeting being held tonight at the Springfield Improvement Association and Archives, located at 210 W 7th Street - 7:00 PM.
Here's a link (verbiage also copied here): http://www.sparcouncil.org/proposed_changes_to_the_springfield_zoning_overlay (http://www.sparcouncil.org/proposed_changes_to_the_springfield_zoning_overlay)
QuoteStatement Regarding Proposed Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69
Summary
On Monday evening the Board of Directors of Springfield Preservation and Revitalization Council, Inc. (SPAR) held a special meeting to review proposed City of Jacksonville Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69. The board members in attendance voted unanimously to oppose this legislation, on the grounds that the recommended changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations were drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district. Further, the proposed changes do not accomplish the stated goal of the settlement agreement, which is to protect the rights of disabled citizens to live wherever they choose in Jacksonville. Instead, the effect of the agreement is to single out Springfield to be the default and de facto area in Jacksonville for disabled housing.
(Read below for the full statement)
Background
This legislation relates to proposed settlement agreements negotiated by the City's Office of General Counsel and several parties alleging that certain actions of the City's planning department violated Federal fair housing and disability law. The proposed agreements require significant changes to COJ's zoning code, including a disproportionate number of changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations.
The Springfield Zoning Overlay was established in 2000 through a partnership between the City of Jacksonville and residents to encourage the revitalization of the Springfield neighborhood. After years of study, the zoning overlay identified a concentration of "special uses" (such as rooming houses and treatment facilities) in Springfield as a detriment to positive development and overall health of the community. The zoning overlay sought to address that imbalance by preventing new such special uses from opening within some portions of the overlay area.
The legislation in question mandates changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay that are unnecessary and inappropriate. The draft changes to the overlay were made without the input of any community members, and apparently with limited – if any – input from the City's planning department.
Springfield is a nationally recognized historic district with unique challenges, including 100+ year old infrastructure and traditional development patterns that require consideration. The zoning overlay and related preservation regulations were adopted to protect the valuable historic attributes of the neighborhood. Riverside-Avondale's historic districts are protected by similar, albeit more recent and more comprehensive, ordinances. Historic attributes of other Duval County communities, such as San Marco and Mandarin, are also protected by overlays that limit certain land uses.
SPAR, and the residents of Springfield it represents, understand and respect the need for disabled citizens to be able to live where they choose to live. While the City of Jacksonville should certainly take measures to ensure that disabled individuals are able to live in the neighborhood of their choice, the proposed changes to the Springfield overlay do not accomplish that goal, and disproportionately impact Historic Springfield. Springfield's one square mile is already accessible to the disabled and other disadvantaged individuals who choose to live in the community. Springfield is a diverse neighborhood, with a variety of housing options, the majority of which are affordable for low to moderate income residents. In fact, the average income of Springfield residents is well below the median income in Duval County. Many of these housing options are suitable for – and available to – individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, these opportunities are not currently available in many other parts of Duval County.
We encourage the City of Jacksonville to reject the proposed legislation, and instead to focus on a comprehensive solution that provides housing for disabled citizens and other disadvantaged groups throughout the City.
- SPAR Council Board of Directors
Recommendations
- City Council should require that any changes to Springfield's Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations be made prudently and comprehensively.
- City planners should collaborate with Springfield residents and the Office of General Counsel to craft revisions that ensure that the overlay protects the valuable historic character of the neighborhood and supports high quality development, while protecting the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home.
- City Council must not approve the proposed settlement agreements so long as they mandate changes to the Springfield overlay that have not been established through an appropriate and thoughtful process.
Opportunities for the public to provide input
- Feb 14th @ 5pm – Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted
- Feb 22nd @ 4:45pm - Land Use & Zoning City Council committee meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.
- Feb 28th @ 5pm - Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. No public input accepted, but final vote will be held.
- How to provide input via email.
TO: JoyceMorgan@coj.net; Ferraro@coj.net; ABowman@coj.net; SWilson@coj.net; LBoyer@coj.net; MattS@coj.net; RGaffney@coj.net; KBrown@coj.net; GarrettD@coj.net; RBrown@coj.net; DBecton@coj.net; DoyleC@coj.net; Gulliford@coj.net; JimLove@coj.net; ABrosche@coj.net; JRC@coj.net; THazouri@coj.net; GAnderson@coj.net; SNewby@coj.net
CC: MayorLennyCurry@coj.net
Subject: 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69
Dear City Council & Mayor Curry,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sincerely,
John & Jane Doe,
1000 Main Street
1- the changes DO NOT harm the historic district.
2 - because of the changes there will NOT be this huge number of new facilities. But of course, this was not about a facility, it was always about who was going to live in an apartment building.
3 - This is the same BS that got us here to start with. The ADA and fair housing laws are not intended to protect the feeling privileged Historic Springfield residents like the SPAR Board, but rather to protect the poor and disabled from them.
4 - I strongly suspect that the Office of General Council is going to say no changes as this language was what enabled the City to get off this easy. Yes, easy, look at New Orleans as an example of what it could have been as well as some of the other settlements over this issue where even the Federal Judges wanted the cities to be hit with huge cash civil settlements.
5 - While they may try to use language that implies otherwise, this is all about WHO, not what and like mentioned above, the laws do not allow you to do that. In addition, if you actually look at the settlement, it is not just Historic Springfield effected but it was only in the Springfield Overlay that the language was so discriminatory that it had to be changed.
6 - One would think the SPAR Council Board would be intelligent enough to know that fighting this will only make it worse. They should be giving true and thoughtful words of wisdom to the residents about this rather than fanning the flames of stupidity.
Hi.
So, basically the issue is that the proposed overlay changes contained in the settlement go far beyond what is necessary to address fair housing concerns. They strip even basic protections/structure out of the overlay, which are found in other neighborhood overlays around Jacksonville.
That's because the proposed changes didn't go through the normal Planning/community/vetting process. Thus, it's just being asked that overlay changes go through the normal process - which would actually be very helpful. The Springfield Zoning Overlay needs many updates totally unrelated to the proposed settlement.
I suspect this will happen. We'll see.
damn
Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 31, 2017, 10:01:43 PM
Hi.
So, basically the issue is that the proposed overlay changes contained in the settlement go far beyond what is necessary to address fair housing concerns. They strip even basic protections/structure out of the overlay, which are found in other neighborhood overlays around Jacksonville.
That's because the proposed changes didn't go through the normal Planning/community/vetting process. Thus, it's just being asked that overlay changes go through the normal process - which would actually be very helpful. The Springfield Zoning Overlay needs many updates totally unrelated to the proposed settlement.
I suspect this will happen. We'll see.
The Springfield overlay was a bit unique in how it handled various uses, which means it was indeed different than all other areas of Jacksonville. In actuality, the changes being made to the overlay due to the lawsuit bring it into line with pretty much the rest of the city. The basic wordage of the settlement also does not just effect Springfield but all of Jacksonville. That's because, like Stephen said, the so called leadership in Historic Springfield screwed the pooch on this one. It should also be noted that the protections for the historic properties, you know, the ones the City itself likes to often ignore, and most of the basic zoning codes that were unique to Springfield are still there. New rooming houses are still banned and most other intensive uses still have restrictions and they are only allowed by exception; again pretty much the same as the rest of Jacksonville.
Something that is new and is true now for all of Jacksonville is that no public input is required for the disabled to get "reasonable accommodations" and some zoning exceptions to accommodate those requests. This was done simply because it has been proven that the City listened to the public to deny the disabled their basic rights. You can blame Jack Meeks mostly for that little change as the laws specify a city can not do that.
During the community meeting last night, I noticed that Ability Housing seemed to be blamed for the changes. In fact, the community has no one to blame for their loss of say in this but the very people who were leading the meeting last night.
Also in the settlement is the statement that the fact that there are other areas and locations that could be suitable for the disabled is not a reason to deny the reasonable accommodations. In other words, the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument is null and void.
Most of the changes are to clarify that the City must actually follow the Federal laws and that things like helping people get help, like transportation services, meal on wheels, medical help, etc. does not constitute an intensive use. One change is that now, in some cases, even if that help is provided at an on site facility, it is not illegal or what was called a "special use" under the Springfield overlay.
The City also has to go through training and to have people properly qualified to make those reasonable accommodation decisions.
But what does this really mean to not only the Historic District but all of Jacksonville?
Jacksonville has had a pattern of discrimination throughout it's past. Through this settlement it got a few wacks on the butt. Historic Springfield's overlay was always discriminatory but because the City most often found a way to work through the issues of discrimination that came up without involving the Feds, it was left alone. When the City allowed the leadership of Springfield to deny Ability Housing's use of an apartment building as an apartment building only because of who was going to live there and did so at the insistence of the leadership of Springfield, it crossed a line. The resulting lawsuits appear to be going to cost the City in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 million counting the amounts listed in the settlement, the additional cost of training and personnel and the undisclosed civil settlement with Ability Housing. All because some residents of the one square mile of Historic Springfield were afraid of 12 formless homeless, disabled and possibility veterans moving into an apartment building. Now does that sound like a good deal to the taxpayers of Jacksonville to you?
It isn't. So to prevent that from happening again, changes are being made to the zoning code. Changes that mostly simply insure the rights of those less fortunate among us will be respected in the future.
Councilman Gaffney was at the meeting last night and while he did express support for the residents who want this to be blocked, he also said he was told that this deal is in the best interests of the community and that not all the info was out here. This, in my mind, means that the DOJ has the proof they need to a much larger settlement if this current settlement is not approved and the case goes onto Federal Court. As a person interviewed by the DOJ over this issue, I can tell you the investigation was thorough and covered a wider range of issues than just Ability Housing.
Jack Meeks also stated that in his opinion, this case was not like New Orleans, which cost that City many millions of dollars. He thinks this because in New Orleans zoning issue was what he calls a "special use" facility being used as a new special use facility while the Ability Housing issue was about a new, additional special use. For those that want to believe him please think about this. Ability Housing was nothing but an apartment building and was MADE to be a special use at the request of Jack Meeks. More importantly, the zoning issue is actually secondary in this. The exact same Federal Laws that were ignored in the New Orleans case were ignored here in Jacksonville. The issue Jack Meeks is trying to invoke is meaningless. It is the denial of basic civil rights here that matters. The zoning changes are a result of them being used improperly to deny those rights. Jacksonville's issue is the same as New Orleans's was and could be just as costly.
I would like to mention something that Claude Moulton said in the meeting last night. He brought up, of all things, fences. He implied that the community was being harmed because now the facilities once called special uses and the new ones that could be coming could use chain link fences. The horror of it all. The truth is simply that the existing facilities, which by the way number 8 or 9, were not allowed to keep existing chain link fences. The vast majority of the existing facilities have already changed out their fences. The overlay currently requires "special Uses" to remove existing chain link fences but under the settlement, that requirement is removed. So, now, those existing facilities can keep an existing fence, but not put in a new chain link fence and if a facility were to be in a house that has an existing chain link fence, it can keep it. Just like everyone else in Historic Springfield can. Imagine that, the disabled and those that service them now will have the same fence rights as every other resident. The horrors, right?
Michael Troutman stated in the meeting last might that he already had a call from a developer "greatly concerned" about the changes to the overlay. This was to invoke fear that the values, which have been rising, would be put at risk. The unspoken truth here is that for decades now the same relatively few rooming houses, half way houses and other non-profits have been in Springfield. The values have always gone up and down as the overall economy does not based on the number of facilities or disabled living in the community. In fact, increasing property values makes it less likely the facilities will come and if they do, the costs help insure well run and well built facilities. The reality is that the changes to the overlay will not effect development nor will having a few disabled personas living here hurt property values.
Which brings us to this, the leadership here in Historic Springfield, meaning the SIAA, SPAR Council, Jack Meeks, ETC could have used this opportunity to truly lead. Instead they have decided to continue to use the tactics of fear mongering and misinformation. Springfield encompasses a larger area than Historic Springfield and has it's share of real problems. If the leadership worked on those real issues and did not worry about a few disabled persons, the entire city and particularly the Urban Core would be better for it.
I streamed last night's Community Meeting via Facebook Live. Anyone interested in knowing what was said can view it here:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211782765191766&id=1448243269 (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211782765191766&id=1448243269)
Apparently, there was discussion about the legal non-conforming uses last night -- those which were grandfathered in 10 years ago. And also discussion about sober houses. The intent is clear here -- to denigrate the legally existing homes, implying that they are bad for the neighborhood and that residents should be in fear of more moving in.
A simple discussion of some of the terms is below. Recovery houses, rooming houses, sober houses, special uses. It can all be confusing. Recovery houses and rooming houses which existed before the overlay are entitled to remain. These are called "special uses" in the current overlay. Sober houses are discussed on a thread in this forum. For the most part, sober houses are newer, set up after the zoning overlay was enacted.
For a list of the special uses from 2009 and a discussion about them, go here:
Topic: List of "special Uses" in Springfield. (Rooming Houses too!) http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6684.0.html
For a discussion on sober houses, go here: "What is a sober house?" (2010)http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7213.0.html
---------------------------------
My thoughts have changed after watching the paying off of government officials, the cowards of local government caving to the hysteria of a few. I no longer think that "sober houses" ought to have to get a CU. The city cannot be trusted with this info without discrimination. Obviously.
My distinction between a recovery house and a sober house is as follows. The grandfathered "halfway" houses in Springfield are recovery houses. They do not meet the
current zoning requirements of the overlay. They met them at the time they opened -- some having been opened since the 60s, others since the 80s.
These grandfathered uses will still be around in any sort of Zoning Overlay which is negotiated with the feds. The recovery houses are protected as they house persons with disabilities. The rooming houses are different from the halfway houses in that they do not cater to a protected class of people. Still, they are grandfathered in as they were in place long before the overlay existed.
The sober houses are of two kinds. The first kind needs reasonable accommodations to exist because they do not meet current zoning law and are opened at the time after the overlay was enacted. They are housing that has more than 5 unrelated people living in a single family home. They can certainly ask for this reasonable accommodation and they are entitled to it,
see the supreme court case City of Edmonds v. Oxford house.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/725.html
A registry of those who seek reasonable accommodations to exceed local zoning once seemed a reasonable idea. I no longer think that is valid given the vitriol I have personally witnessed regarding the disabled in Springfield.
However, to my knowledge there are no sober houses in Springfield which exceed this local zoning requirement.The second kind of sober house is merely a legal rental which houses less than the five unrelated persons the zoning code suggests. This type of rental is no different than any other type. There should be no need to register this if any other rental unit in the city is not required to register. Indeed, there should be no difference in treatment at all. These lower density sober houses should be able to have their residents live lives without the fear that the neighborhood will take actions against them.
Which brings us to the meeting last night in which the neighborhood assembled to discuss the current disabled housing. Several handouts were given at the end the meeting including one which discussed "corruption in sober houses" as if this is a thing...only further fear mongering the neighborhood into its former frenzy.
There is a call to action.
Quote
Our Recommendations
City Council should require that any changes to Springfield's Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations be made prudently and comprehensively.
City planners should collaborate with Springfield residents and the Office of General Counsel to craft revisions that ensure that the overlay protects the valuable historic character of the neighborhood and supports high quality development, while protecting the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home.
City Council must not approve the proposed settlement agreements so long as they mandate changes to the Springfield overlay that have not been established through an appropriate and thoughtful process.
How to provide input in-person
Feb 14th @ 5pm – Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.
Feb 22nd @ 4:45pm - Land Use & Zoning City Council committee meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.
Feb 28th @ 5pm - Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. No public input will be accepted, but a final vote will be held.
<<< Councilmen Gaffney has indicated that he will attempt to defer this issue, which would delay these meetings and may allow more time for the community and city to examine better options. >>>
A zoning overlay which desires to protect " the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home" -- cannot do that at the expense of the disabled. Or if it does attempt, it will be at its own peril.
Quote
"As established by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws such as Fair Housing Act take precedence over conflicting state and local laws. The Fair Housing Act thus prohibits state and local land use and zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under the Act."
Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Nov. 19, 2016So there is no path available to go where SPAR wants to lead. No path to prejudice that the city or neighborhood, or any individual, can take.
I want everyone out there to know that Michelle Tappouni was uninvited to the SPAR Council board meeting that decided to fight the settlement. She is President and but one vote. The only reason not to want her there is that they knew she would be the voice of reason. Reason says you go with what is right and just and do so with integrity. Instead, the other board members left her out and went the other way; to the lack of common sense and the inclusion of misinformation and innuendo. Michelle, as President, gave me hope that SPAR Council could finally find the leadership role it has always been capable of. Her exclusion proves to me that the other board members wish it to be the same old song; one of exclusion and prejudice against those they decide are beneath them. It is a sad choice for them and for Historic Springfield.
I'm searching for information about this...I would love to hear from anyone who has this knowledge.
I'm quite sure that by:
(1) holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA"
(2) targeting a group of disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood, "sober houses" "recovery houses", in a disparaging way -- stating that the neighborhood has too many of them, handing out inflammatory, inaccurate and irrelevant information about sober houses,
(3) and calling the neighborhood to action "speak out against the disabled rights at city council, urge city council to vote against Fair Housing",
violates Fair Housing.
A neighborhood group is inciting its residents to violate the civil rights of their neighbors.
This action on their part is causing great harm to people who are currently struggling with their disease. To marginalize people -- to make them feel they are a blight to the community -- has extremely harmful effects on sobriety.
I struggle with this constantly, and have for 10 years -- to infom the people that I work with that the neighborhood is actively fighting their right to live in Springfield so that they are prepared when they leave their front door. Or do I not bring it up and let them enter Three Layers, Uptown, of God Forbid a neighborhood meeting where they find themselves the subject of the meeting.
This is a thing.
I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?
Quote from: remc86007 on February 02, 2017, 09:13:34 AM
I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?
I'll try this again.
The issue is that the proposed changes to the overlay did not go through the typical process of Planning Dept & community input, therefore the draft is deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville.
That's why the community is upset. Not because it may be tweaked to address Fair Housing concerns, but that the proposal to do so was not done in a thoughtful, expert manner. It's a hack job, as any Planner or land use attIorney would tell you.
Hope that clears things up.
If you read the statement from SPAR, it says as much, though perhaps in more technical language.
Thanks for the response. I just glanced through the 2017-36 revisions, perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how the draft is "deeply flawed" or a "hack job." Could you provide specifics? Reading the post on the SPAR website doesn't clarify the specifics issue for me either. It seems to read largely as a simple redraft to better conform the ordinances with the ADA.
I completely understand the dismay over the lack of ordinary procedure, but my inclination is that the community forwent their right to such procedure when they brought about (or at least failed to prevent) this lawsuit against the city.
Here's the thing.
The neighborhood does not get the chance to determine its willingness to end the discrimination against the disabled.
Because...well...Tuesday night for example.
Or rather, it does so at its own loss. No one to blame but the Fab Four: Meeks, Trautmann, Molton, Cudd with the aid and resources of SIAA and SPAR.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 02, 2017, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: remc86007 on February 02, 2017, 09:13:34 AM
I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?
I'll try this again.
The issue is that the proposed changes to the overlay did not go through the typical process of Planning Dept & community input, therefore the draft is deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville.
That's why the community is upset. Not because it may be tweaked to address Fair Housing concerns, but that the proposal to do so was not done in a thoughtful, expert manner. It's a hack job, as any Planner or land use attIorney would tell you.
Hope that clears things up.
If you read the statement from SPAR, it says as much, though perhaps in more technical language.
Quote from: remc86007 on February 02, 2017, 11:48:10 AM
Thanks for the response. I just glanced through the 2017-36 revisions, perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how the draft is "deeply flawed" or a "hack job." Could you provide specifics? Reading the post on the SPAR website doesn't clarify the specifics issue for me either. It seems to read largely as a simple redraft to better conform the ordinances with the ADA.
I completely understand the dismay over the lack of ordinary procedure, but my inclination is that the community forwent their right to such procedure when they brought about (or at least failed to prevent) this lawsuit against the city.
The ordinance changes only selected things from the original overlay. For instance, all ACLFs, Group care homes, Halfway houses and rooming houses that were in existence at the time the overlay were grandfathered, labeled as "Special Uses" and required to follow a particular set of rules to be allowed to legally operate. this "special Use" category only appears in the Springfield Overlay, no where else. New businesses meeting the definition of the "Special Use" category are banned from Historic Springfield. The changes eliminate the term Special Use and all references to it.
Rooming houses remain as a banned use unless grandfathered and those must still follow various special rules but are no longer labeled as "special". They also replaced a rather long and completely unenforceable list of how to tell if a place was a rooming house with a much simpler but probably no more enforceable one.
As to the dreaded Halfway houses, group care homes, etc, they are now still grandfathered and new ones are only allowed by exception. It should be noted that low density group care homes (6 and under) have always been allowed by right; this change is to allow higher density ones; again, only by exception. Pretty much just like in the rest of Jacksonville.
A large change is that now the City must send people off to be trained in how to deal with the various ADA and Fair Housing laws that the City was talked into breaking over the Ability Housing issue. And the City must have a specialist to make "Reasonable Accommodation" determinations. Public hearings are no longer required for the various accommodations or even an exception to the zoning code to accommodate the disabled needs but are still optional if the applicant agrees to it.
An important statement here is...."in making the [reasonable accommodation] determination, it shall not be a factor whether there exist other neighborhoods or dwellings which could accommodate the disabled person." This basically eliminates the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument many wish to use.
The settlement wordage also tries to insure no one can do a PUD and make that PUD remove or reduce anyone's civil rights as protected under ADA and Fair Housing. Finally, the settlement makes it clear that just because a disabled person or a those providing housing, may require various services, like Meals on Wheels, counseling ETC, that use of the dwelling can not be declared an illegal use under zoning.
In other words, Ability Housing can come into Springfield and buy a 12 unit apartment building and rent it to the formerly homeless, the disabled, veterans and do so completely legally just like it has been in the rest of Jacksonville. They do not have to notify anyone they are doing it, you know, just like any other investor does not have to notify the community when they buy an apartment building.
All of the traditional protections like you can't just build anything you want, you can't have new chain link fences, ETC are still in place and untouched. Of course since it was discriminatory, the Special Uses which could not KEEP a chain link fence, now can keep it, just like every other person can.
The only people who can possibly think this settlement does harm to the Historic District are the same ones who still do not understand that the various ADA and Fair housing laws were not passed to protect their right to exercise their self perceived privileged but rather to protect the less fortunate among us from them.
Here's a comment made on Facebook by SPAR Council's ED, "We can work with the City to ensure that the grant application includes requirements that will prevent a developer like Ability from trying to sneak something into a neighborhood like they did with Cottage." She went onto try to say it was about the what, meaning insuring that the buildings were properly done, but I do not see that in her comment. I see the exact same sentiment that got us here to this settlement to begin with: We must stop things like Ability Housing.
SPAR Council's position paper essentially puts forth the same sentiment. And does it best to make Springfield the victim. The SIAA meeting went even further and tried to go back to the scare tactics used when Ability Housing first tried to buy the apartment building on Cottage. A resident described the meeting this way on Facebook: "Pitchforks - that is what this meeting was about..."
The leadership of Historic Springfield is intending to do everything they can to be able to continue to discriminate against those they do not like. The residents need to step forward and say enough is enough and stop the nonsense before it costs the City far more than the few have already. SPAR Council and the SIAA and folks like Jack Meeks only have any say or power if you give it to them.
Nothing inflammatory here!!! :-[
from SIAA website:
Quote
Historic Springfield Community Meeting
Regarding possible settlement of lawsuits pertaining to Ability Housing's previously proposed project at 139 Cottage Avenue.
Tuesday, January 31st at 7pm
210 West 7th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206
The City of Jacksonville is moving towards a settlement with Ability Housing. The Settlement Agreement and Release has already been signed by Sam Mousa, Chief Administrative Officer and this was introduced to City Council by the request of the Office of General Council at last Tuesday's meeting in the form of three Bills. (2017-0036, 2017-0068, 2017-0069).
It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!
Each bill will go to several committees prior to being voted on by City Council. There will be time for public comment. It's extremely important that we show how much we care about our neighborhood and urge City Council oppose all three.
There will be a community meeting at 7pm on Tuesday, January 31st explaining the process, what this means for the community, and what you can do.
Unable to make the meeting? We will be sending out updates as they become available.
I think there is a misunderstanding among some of those opposed to the settlement and overlay changes about how settlement negotiations with DOJ work. The city, as far as I can tell, has no leverage here. I don't understand what rejecting this settlement offer would achieve other than add to the city's already unnecessary expenditure on this mess.
Quote from: remc86007 on February 02, 2017, 08:26:12 PM
I think there is a misunderstanding among some of those opposed to the settlement and overlay changes about how settlement negotiations with DOJ work. The city, as far as I can tell, has no leverage here. I don't understand what rejecting this settlement offer would achieve other than add to the city's already unnecessary expenditure on this mess.
It's very poor leadership since the beginning and all the way down.
1st -- should the leadership in Springfield have risked the loss of any part of the overlay over a losing battle with discriminatory actions? Anyone with the ability to read and research would have seen this as a fool-hardy action
2nd -- should the city have had a Come To Jesus talk with the leaders in the neighborhood and educated them as to federal law versus local ordinance? Again, it isn't rocket-science.
3rd -- when the feds came back with the lawsuit and a settlement, the leaders in the city should have explained it more clearly to the leaders in the neighborhood. CM Gaffney tried for a few minutes, but then caved to the neighborhood and said he would help them. Help them, I might add, discriminate against the disabled -- oh and what does CM Gaffney do when he isn't a councilman? That's right. Runs the Community Rehabilitation Center
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-05-16/story/state-reggie-gaffneys-nonprofit-overbilled-medicaid-nearly-14-million
4th -- faced with the TOTAL loss of the overlay (Gaffney's words), the neighborhood leaders should have realized their position was taking the neighborhood to a place it didn't want to go, and calmed and assuaged fears. Instead it is participating in fear-mongering which will only lead to further marginalizing the disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood. (Just as an aside here, had a conversation with someone who once again said "but we really do have too many of them in the neighborhood" -- imagine for a moment if you had heard that the world had too many of you in it? How can you even express the injury caused by such a statement? And the arrogance of thinking in this manner? The presumption is that the neighborhood can handle as many prejudiced people as it desires, but there is a saturation point of others. CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK BEFORE SPEAKING?)
Meanwhile Main Street sits vacant and sad. Little neighborhood action since the infamous car wash war of 2010:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7174.0.html
Everyone from Historic Springfield who reads this forum and thread and is concerned about the settlement simply needs to google: Do sober houses or halfway houses hurt housing values? I'd do that for you but then I'd be accused of somehow biasing the results. You can also substitute other words in there like formerly homeless, housing first, ETC. Also try "Real estate values and sober house issues" or simply "sober houses issues". What you will see is a pretty varied list of pro and con articles.
What I see when I actually read these is the actual studies, the ones that do real interviews and ask real questions, end up saying that there are no or very few issues. There does not seem to be any correlation between values, time on the market and the existence of these kinds of facilities. During my 19 to 20 years of living and/or having businesses here in Historic Springfield, I have seen property values go up and down with the rest of the City and even the rest of the country but not because there may or may not be some kind of facility near by. Of course, there are a few who take exception to having those kinds of facilities near by no matter what, but then the same people often worry about things like culture and religion as well.
We can also look at the history of Springfield and see why the Overlay was enacted the way it was. Yes, there was an abundance of high density rooming houses and halfway houses, some of which were an problem. Most, if not all, of the problematic ones are gone. In fact, they were going on their own even before the overlay was passed. Property values rising is as effective as a deterrent to "flop houses" as anything. In fact, one long time and still licensed rooming house in Historic Springfield was remodeled with granite counter tops and stainless appliances. Not exactly what you would think of in a rooming house, now is it?
Of course, to be fair, we also have to look at the articles that are against having this type of facility in your community. Reading them I soon realized that the complaints were fear based, not fact based and when there was truly a real issue, it was a neighbor to neighbor kind of issue, not really the ones everyone was initially afraid of but still not issues you want. From anyone. Not the couple renting next store, not the family of 6 with 2 teenagers who bought around the corner. You simply have no real control over who may or may not live close to you. It is always the luck of the draw. Most people, thankfully, just want good neighbors so try to be good neighbors themselves. That is the best you can hope for.
In fact, if you are dealing with a sober house, for instance, there is going to be a better chance that if they are not being good neighbors, then the owner, organization, etc will listen and act to correct the issues. Why? They can google too.
Here's a real world story from one of our sober houses. This was a freshly rehabbed house that was so messed up by previous owners that it was not even considered contributing. We removed all the stucco and brought back the exterior to it's former glory. The market had crashed so we elected not to sell and to make it a sober living house; a house shared by a few guys working on their continued recovery. The community was not exactly happy. People put up cameras and posted various complaints on the forums. We had a wake there and that hit the forums as a terrible AA meeting, how dare we! After awhile, things calmed down. The neighbors with the cameras took cookies to the guys and the folks who moved in next door still ask how some of the guys are doing. Why the change? The guys just want the same thing you do and will do their best to be good neighbors. Were there ever issues? Yes, but the neighbors knew who to call and when they did, things were addressed. From reading the forums and Facebook, that is more than often happens with rentals and even other homeowners sometimes. FYI, we did sell the house years later and it is today owner occupied so if you figure out which house it is, please don't go up to the door and ask to see a sober house! Though it might be nice to meet the neighbors! You can find stories like this all over the country as sober houses, houses for the disabled, etc are all over the City and the Country, not just in Historic Springfield as some seem to imply.
So, what are we talking about with this change to the overlay? Due to the fact that the City and the leadership of Historic Springfield caused federal laws to be broken, the overlay and it's discriminatory language got noticed and the City is being forced to spent part of it's budget on additional housing for the disabled and pay various legal fees and remove the discriminatory language. The dollar cost we can estimate at 3 to 4 million dollars.
The actual changes do not change anything to do with what you can or can not do with the physical house. You still can't put up a new chain link fence, everyone still has to get that all important Certificate of Appropriateness, the historic guidelines are all still safe and secure. Now if only we could get the City itself to always follow them. But that's a different discussion.
As to uses, new rooming houses are still not allowed, low density group care homes are still allowed by right, just like they always have been. Higher density group homes and the like are now allowed by exception in Historic Springfield, just like in the rest of the city. By exception, hmmm, that means it's zoning impact will be considered before it is given an exception, just like it has always been in the rest of Jacksonville. Yes, certain requests for accommodation and therefore some zoning deviations can be done by the City directly and without a public hearing, but that does not mean the City has to approve everything asked for. There are guidelines and the City is now required to have qualified people to make those kinds of decisions. So overall, there does not seem to be anything really to be afraid of. Certainly nothing "devastating" to Historic Springfield or anywhere else in Jacksonville.
Oh, what about that original issue? The facility that Ability Housing was going to bring to Springfield that caused all this? First, to be informed, you need to go read the threads about that issue. And then read the settlement. See, the problem was that Ability Housing was not going to bring a facility here but rather was going to own apartments that they held for formerly homeless, disabled persons who may or may not have been veterans. Fear of those 12 possibly disabled Veterans caused this issue, nothing reality based. Today, if Ability Housing were to buy that same apartment building, yes, the City would simply say OK and given the required Certificate of Use for the multi family dwelling just like it was going to do way back when before Jack Meeks got involved. And no one who lived near by would care. Many would not even know. Unless you think no one should receive help in arranging things like wheel chair transport, meals on wheel , ETC, an apartment building reserved for the formerly homeless disabled vets is no different from any other multifamily dwelling anywhere.
For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume you and the City really does believe that there are too many of a certain kind of facility in one area of the City. What can you do about it? Well, you can't say there are too many now and so you can't come here. You truly never legally could say that. With the settlement, it is also more officially written. But, and yes there is a but, you can offer an incentive for the facility to go somewhere else. No, no, you can not use fear and intimidation to do it. Think of the grants. Offer something that makes it beneficial to be say, in Arlington or Mandarin rather than Historic Springfield. It will need to be something that truly benefits the people who would live there. A new bus route, a new bus stop, a new something that makes their living there easier. Money, by the way, probably won't work as Historic Springfield has a financial penalty already - the Historic Designation. What makes Historic Springfield attractive to these types of facilities are the same things that makes you want to move there. The houses, affordability, the walk-ability.
Sorry for the long post. But let's recap. The overlay will continue to do it's job in the same way it has been but will now do so without being discriminatory. Seems like a good thing. There will not be this huge wave of terrible facilities coming in; partly because they are not terrible and partly because they are needed all over and so most will indeed continue to go elsewhere. Those that are here are, as said by the very opponents of this settlement, well run and there is a natural vested interest that any new facility, if one comes, will also be well run. Unless convinced by the opponents that Springfield will indeed be laid to waste by this settlement, the progress of Historic Springfield will simply continue as it has been.
What's the famous Quote? "You have nothing to fear but fear itself. " That applies here and as a resident of Historic Springfield, you should be doing your best to make sure the proclaimed "leaders" of Springfield, SPAR Council and SIAA, understand that.
Again I ask....WHAT IS EVERYONE AFRAID OF??
The City of Jacksonville is required by the Department of Justice to remove the discriminatory language; there is no appealing that truth. And the current modifications do in fact remove the special use language currently included in the Springfield Zoning Overlay. The changes do
NOT remove any historic protections that are currently in place. That claim is simply not true and only fuels the fear-mongering.
What about that R/UDAT study (here's a link: https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/dat_aiab080330_jacksonville_1985.pdf (https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/dat_aiab080330_jacksonville_1985.pdf)) that Michael Trautmann and others keep referring to and how it states Springfield has 48% of all the congregate living facilities in the entire city. Well, that study is
over 30 YEARS OLD, published in 1985. And it doesn't actually say Springfield has 48% of all the congregate living facilities in the City. The below can be found on page 32:
QuoteCongregate care facilities (ACLF's, group homes, halfway houses, etc.) are clearly over-concentrated in the Springfield neighborhood. Including the Job Corps Training Center and unlicensed shelter programs, thirty-four (34) such facilities have been identified in this one square mile area.
Approximately 50% of the congregate care facilities licensed and utilized by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for the five county district are reported to be in the Springfield neighborhood.
There are two separate facts stated: (1) Including licensed and unlicensed, there were 34 facilities in Springfield, (2) 50% of the licensed facilities
used by HRS were located in Springfield (we don't have any numbers to tell us what that 50% was). Even if all 34 of the facilities identified in Springfield were licensed and used by HRS, that was 30 years ago...Things have changed a lot since this study was published.
I would venture to guess that the problem facilities were unlicensed rooming houses, which are now banned, and will continue to be banned after the ordinance changes. Springfield's leadership needs to stop skewing the numbers of a 30+ year old study in an effort to fuel the fear.
In response to the apparent discrimination, a FB neighbor and friend posted the following status update:
QuoteAnother married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield. Jeez don't we already have enough of them here? Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco
I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous. It does to me. Replace "married couple" with "disabled couple" and it should still sound silly or stupid or ridiculous.
I am proud that so many of my Springfield neighbors are STRONG and VOCAL advocates for the Human Rights Ordinance which affords equal rights to all regardless of sexual orientation. What if Ability Housing had wanted to open a facility for LGBTQ in Springfield? Would my neighbors have stood up and shouted, "NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD! WE HAVE OUR FAIR SHARE OF LGBTQ PEOPLE HERE!"? I doubt it.... So why are so many of the people fighting for LGBTQ equality also appear to be against fair housing? You cannot choose who buys and lives in the property next door to you. Every person, no matter what, deserves a place to live and should be allowed to choose where. It's not only the right thing, it's the law.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 07, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
A FB friend posted the following status update:QuoteAnother married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield. Jeez don't we already have enough of them here? Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco
I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous. It does to me.
Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?
Quote from: Gunnar on February 07, 2017, 05:26:43 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 07, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
A FB friend posted the following status update:QuoteAnother married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield. Jeez don't we already have enough of them here? Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco
I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous. It does to me.
Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?
Sarcasm? Or am I missing your sarcasm?
Quote from: remc86007 on February 07, 2017, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: Gunnar on February 07, 2017, 05:26:43 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 07, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
A FB friend posted the following status update:QuoteAnother married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield. Jeez don't we already have enough of them here? Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco
I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous. It does to me.
Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?
Sarcasm? Or am I missing your sarcasm?
Definitely sarcasm.....
No, actually a naive question :)
Pulled from a summary of a recent SPAR Council sponsored community meeting:
QuoteProposed changes to the Springfield zoning overlay and Historic District regulations. Councilman Gaffney reported that he supports protecting the Springfield zoning overlay, and will advocate for City Council to not approve the proposed settlement agreement as is, which includes language that would dramatically impact the Springfield zoning overlay without due process. Instead, Councilman Gaffney and SPAR urge City Council to require changes to the Springfield zoning overlay to go through a thorough and thoughtful process, including the city's Planning Department and community input, which is typical in making zoning changes such as this.
The new schedule for public meetings where people can provide their input in-person on this issue is:
February 22nd @ 5pm - the City Council's Land Use & Zoning committee meeting.
February 23rd, time unknown - Councilman Gaffney has requested a public meeting with the At-Large City Council representatives so that people can provide input about this issue and Council reps can learn about the issue, prior to the full City Council meeting. Will update time once available.
February 28th @ 5pm - the full City Council meeting.
Councilman Gaffney mentioned that those who attend public meetings to provide their input are often the most persuasive.
They have toned down the public rhetoric from their earlier comments where they stated that it would be disastrous for the community. It now appears that they have realized it is not a good idea to state that and so now the overlay is just being "dramatically impact[ed}". It is. The grossly discriminatory language is being removed. Not much else is happening. Stopping this settlement is not the smart move, but then again, we are here with this lawsuit and settlement because people failed to make the smart moves. The current leadership of Springfield can't seem to learn from their past mistakes. There are smart people there, why have they not figured this out? We have potentially good leaders here, where are they?
Think you may be confusing SPAR's words with someone else's or another entity. There has been no language that has either referenced a disaster or has been discriminatory coming from SPAR.
The position hasn't changed: community zoning overlays shouldn't be dramatically changed, without expertise, via settlement.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 10, 2017, 07:49:22 AM
Think you may be confusing SPAR's words with someone else's or another entity. There has been no language that has either referenced a disaster or has been discriminatory coming from SPAR.
The position hasn't changed: community zoning overlays shouldn't be dramatically changed, without expertise, via settlement.
QuoteCOJ May Gut Springfield's Zoning Overlay
A special notice from SPAR Council
Quote
...drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district
From a Facebook post by SPAR Council's ED:
Quote"We can work with the City to ensure that the grant application includes requirements that will prevent a developer like Ability from trying to sneak something into a neighborhood like they did with Cottage."
So while the actual word "disastrous"" was not used by SPAR Council, the use of the word "gut" does seem to agree with the stance of SIAA below:
QuoteIt's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!
Plus considering that the only change being done to the overlay is the removal of the entire "Special Use" category, except of course for Rooming Houses, and making Springfield on par with the rest of the city, including the other overlays, to the possibility of a high density (7 plus) group care home opening at all, it is difficult to see how the resistance to this settle and the changes can be anything but . . . discriminatory . . . to the potential disabled who could now live among you in an apartment building like Ability Housing wanted to do.
You need to stop the posturing and the false rhetoric that this resistance to the settlement is all about how it was done and try to explain how you see the changes are "gutting" the overlay and how SPAR Council ED's comment is in any way different from the position SPAR Council took when Ability Housing first came to buy the Cottage Ave property and were so badly discriminated against that it is going to cost us tax payers 3 to 4 million dollars.
Quote .... holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA" unquote
This is an unkind and untrue statement. SIAA has not benefitted from Federal funding grants - Springfield has. Every penny received from "ISTEA" grants has been poured back into our neighborhood. "Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, public law 102-240 ISTEA pronounced ICETEA". Without Lisa Neary and Melissa Miller's incredible grant writing, after this act was established our parks would not look the same as they do today, Phil Neary will attest to that. ISTEA grants were available to Springfield since our Main Street is also a federal highway, so our park touching Main Street qualified. Lisa and Melissa were recognized by the city for their work. They achieved two ISTEA grants totaling over $600,000. The first changed Confederate park from a wasteland. The lake was cleared of garbage (and shopping carts), huge trees were planted around the perimeter and the fence was erected (costing in the area of $85,000 alone). Lisa at one time was actually in the lake!! By the time the second grant came through it was not able to be used as in the original request (pollution supposedly), so we got our Dog Park. You may check our books. We also helped SPAR achieve the first part of the Rose Arbor, they got the Mayor's $5,000 grant and we contributed money, getting permits and the required architect's drawing of the site. The second part of the arbor cost $7,000 which SIAA funded totally. We spent $25,000 restoring the statues in Confederate Park.
We did get a Mayor's grant of $5,000 towards the restoration of the Dillon fountain. We funded the rest by selling 6 lots that had been given to the club (we could not afford the taxes anyway), selling bricks, and a couple of generous donations from Mack Bissette and Shands. The total cost of the fountain including the second lot of work, done recently, was $143,500. All the moneys we received, from Rentals and Home Tours, are slated to be used to help the neighborhood. We are also planning to place pieces of the old trolley rails and its actual old bricks, in the median as a historic presentation of how the Main Street rail system looked. We even will place the bricks in the original pattern. The materials to be used were uncovered during the current work on the bridge. We now have to work hard on getting permissions and permits.
We spent hours and money scanning the 1985 survey, in order to make it available on our web, thousands of scans, to help the neighborhood!
Witness the recent placing of the Jewish Center Corner Stone in Klutho park, at a cost of $6,500, we were fortunate to get a donation of $1,500 from the Shorstein family to help us.
We are donating $2,000 towards the beautification of Main Street, ready for the Great Race, it is going to take about $10,000, most of this is going towards adding hundreds of plants to the median, and putting special banners on the lamp posts (if you wish to donate, Michael will be happy).
Go check our latest project - a window in the south facing wall of City Hall, displaying pieces of the very earliest tracks - it shows Springfield as the earliest suburb to get the trolleys. It is a beauty!
We are all volunteers. SIA (original name) is 113 years old in May, all time spent serving our beloved neighborhood.
It seems popular words these days are "Fake news" or Alternative Facts, please stop maligning SIAA in this way.
Christine Farley
Yes, it is popular to use "fake" news and you have often in the past, Ms Farley.
Here's the entire quote you pulled one line from:
QuoteI'm quite sure that by:
(1) holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA"
(2) targeting a group of disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood, "sober houses" "recovery houses", in a disparaging way -- stating that the neighborhood has too many of them, handing out inflammatory, inaccurate and irrelevant information about sober houses,
(3) and calling the neighborhood to action "speak out against the disabled rights at city council, urge city council to vote against Fair Housing",
violates Fair Housing.
A neighborhood group is inciting its residents to violate the civil rights of their neighbors.
I personal know for a fact that the organization now known as SIAA, formerly the Woman's Club and Springfield Improvement Association, has indeed "received the benefit of federal funding grants" and has done so for decades. How? SIAA benefited from Federal grants when funds were passed through from the city to HSCC who in turn passed it through to SIAA by paying rent and helping with the building. It used either direct or passed through federal funds to do all those things you mentioned and even more. The benefit was being able to do those things at all, was it not? And I do not believe anyone will argue that the SIAA in it's previous and current form has done some nice things for the community.
However, your post and complaint is a bit disingenuous as you took a small nothing and made it larger than it is and defended your position by stating all the THINGS you have helped make better without commenting on why the same organization is doing it's best to continue to insure the community discriminates against PEOPLE.
SIAA is the one putting out their "Fake news" and "Alternative facts" in how they are presenting this setlement and with the false implications of what it is doing to the overlay and therefore the community.
I will stop "maligning" the leaders of the organization when they realize that they do not have the right to tell anyone they can not live where they wish to live regardless of how privileged they, the leaders of SIAA, may feel.
HSCC was funded by a federal grant it was a local city one as was SPAR at the time. I think CCDC, but am not sure of that name. One of the reasons they merged was that the city said "get together we are not funding two" they would only fund one SPR organization. As for SIA benefitting from something from HSCC, (decades Wow) they paid 350 per month, the 50 being for electricity, it did not really help SIA, when I took over the books in 2002 - it was essentially broke.
They had sold a couple of pieces of land just to help survive, one on E 5th Street and one on W 5th, this one to Hionides . It was very difficult to rent the building then, there was dereliction all around. Different from today.
Also it was not SIAA's meeting, our place was made available for a community meeting which we always do.
Quote from: strider on February 02, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Nothing inflammatory here!!! :-[
from SIAA website:
Quote
Historic Springfield Community Meeting
Regarding possible settlement of lawsuits pertaining to Ability Housing's previously proposed project at 139 Cottage Avenue.
Tuesday, January 31st at 7pm
210 West 7th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206
The City of Jacksonville is moving towards a settlement with Ability Housing. The Settlement Agreement and Release has already been signed by Sam Mousa, Chief Administrative Officer and this was introduced to City Council by the request of the Office of General Council at last Tuesday's meeting in the form of three Bills. (2017-0036, 2017-0068, 2017-0069).
It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!
Each bill will go to several committees prior to being voted on by City Council. There will be time for public comment. It's extremely important that we show how much we care about our neighborhood and urge City Council oppose all three.
There will be a community meeting at 7pm on Tuesday, January 31st explaining the process, what this means for the community, and what you can do.
Unable to make the meeting? We will be sending out updates as they become available.
Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but this notice sure seems like it was from SIAA. And that they will be sending out updates.
You still are trivializing the discriminatory actions of the organization by your posts.
Quote Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but this notice sure seems like it was from SIAA. And that they will be sending out updates.
You still are trivializing the discriminatory actions of the organization by your posts. End quote
Joe
Go back and read my posts, I have not said yea or nay to the type of meeting being held in the SIAA building or by whom - nothing at all. My problem is the untruth being told that SIAA has accepted federal funds - we have not, nor as far as I know has SPAR. It is a separate issue. Easy to avoid an issue by changing the point of discussion. I did not even mention the other items in the post - just the federal funds!
Quote from: chris farley on February 10, 2017, 01:59:44 PM
Quote Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but this notice sure seems like it was from SIAA. And that they will be sending out updates.
You still are trivializing the discriminatory actions of the organization by your posts. End quote
Joe
Go back and read my posts, I have not said yea or nay to the type of meeting being held in the SIAA building or by whom - nothing at all. My problem is the untruth being told that SIAA has accepted federal funds - we have not, nor as far as I know has SPAR. It is a separate issue. Easy to avoid an issue by changing the point of discussion. I did not even mention the other items in the post - just the federal funds!
The vast majority if not all of the funds that came through the City were actually Federal funds. Just a fact. You can deny it all you want but won't change a thing. Those grants that HSCC and then SPAR Council got were pass through Federal funds. Any funds that came through LISC were most likely also Federal Funds. You may wish to google a few things.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Until the organization benefiting in some fashion begins to convince it's membership and the City to break Federal Laws.
QuoteAlso it was not SIAA's meeting, our place was made available for a community meeting which we always do.
Quote from: strider on February 10, 2017, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: strider on February 02, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Nothing inflammatory here!!! :-[
from SIAA website:
Quote
Historic Springfield Community Meeting
Regarding possible settlement of lawsuits pertaining to Ability Housing's previously proposed project at 139 Cottage Avenue.
Tuesday, January 31st at 7pm
210 West 7th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206
The City of Jacksonville is moving towards a settlement with Ability Housing. The Settlement Agreement and Release has already been signed by Sam Mousa, Chief Administrative Officer and this was introduced to City Council by the request of the Office of General Council at last Tuesday's meeting in the form of three Bills. (2017-0036, 2017-0068, 2017-0069).
It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!
Each bill will go to several committees prior to being voted on by City Council. There will be time for public comment. It's extremely important that we show how much we care about our neighborhood and urge City Council oppose all three.
There will be a community meeting at 7pm on Tuesday, January 31st explaining the process, what this means for the community, and what you can do.
Unable to make the meeting? We will be sending out updates as they become available.
Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but this notice sure seems like it was from SIAA. And that they will be sending out updates.
You still are trivializing the discriminatory actions of the organization by your posts.
Meanwhile, what you are doing is called deflection. Hoping to change the narrative from the fact that SIAA is, along with SPAR Council, urging the community and the City to discriminate against the disabled. It is disingenuous and you know it.
But thanks for helping to keep the subject on that front page!
Irrespective of the source of monies, we do not get to keep one penny of it, we are completely honest. We do not discriminate against the disabled, nor do we try to make money out of their misery. If you still continue to push the fact that the disabled were well treated in Springfield, history says differently.
I am getting out of this conversation now I am not feeling good about it. It is just that I remember places like Madge's on Laura and the sad people housed there, just one instance of many, that is what I fear. The high fence with barbed wire - to keep people in, not out. There was so much of that. That cannot return. All people deserve to be treated with dignity.
Quote from: chris farley on February 10, 2017, 05:01:34 PM
Irrespective of the source of monies, we do not get to keep one penny of it, we are completely honest. We do not discriminate against the disabled, nor do we try to make money out of their misery. If you still continue to push the fact that the disabled were well treated in Springfield, history says differently.
To begin with, no one said that the SIAA had done anything illegal with any funds it got in the past. What is being said is that today it is promoting the discrimination against the disabled in it's stance against this settlement. So, yes, you are by default, discriminating against the disabled. You are trying to hide that, but it is still a fact. And who today is "trying to make money off their misery"? In your mind, is everyone who helps someone in need or even just provides something that meets their needs making money off their misery? That is a sad way to view the world then.
Quote from: chris farley on February 10, 2017, 10:10:32 PM
I am getting out of this conversation now I am not feeling good about it. It is just that I remember places like Madge's on Laura and the sad people housed there, just one instance of many, that is what I fear. The high fence with barbed wire - to keep people in, not out. There was so much of that. That cannot return. All people deserve to be treated with dignity.
Like I said, deflection. Let's talk about the past transgressions of a few places, let's talk about the evils of the past so that no one notices the evils of the present.
There is nothing in the settlement that will allow places like Madge's with high barbed wire fences to come back to Springfield and yet, Ms Farley, that is what you talked about at the community meeting and what you just posted. That is a passive way of fear mongering.
Look at what happened before when there was no overlay. Look how badly these people were treated. Look what the City and this settlement could do to us. That is the message SIAA and SPAR Council is trying to send to the residents of Springfield. It is very much an incorrect message and I think you are smart enough to know that. So why the angst? Unless of course it truly is the desire in insure "those people" can not live in "your" neighborhood.
Today, instead of Barb wire fences to "keep people in", SIAA and SPAR Council are trying to erect a legal fence to keep them out. And that is the evil of the present. That is why the Federal Government brought suit. And that is why the tax payers of Jacksonville are going to pay out 3 to 4 million dollars or even more. This is the reason it is so important to agree to this settlement and move on.
Before the fear mongers can do any more damage to this City.
Hmmm...I would like to learn more about "Madges" and "places like Madges ". What is the story?
I will get blasted but;
Firstly I am not anti disabled people, I an anti abuse of sadly needy people.
Ronald Reagan certainly seemed to start a new "business" when he stopped funding and closed facilities for people disabled by mental illnesses etc." It offered the chance for private establishment of replacement programs. Group homes sprang up - especially in Springfield. It seems that Springfield was the dumping ground for unfortunate people and other areas were not sorry to see this happen.
The R/UDAT report that led to the production of the overlay stated;
"Springfield is now occupied by a largely transient economically downscale population. Its fine old housing stock has become prey to speculators and absentee landlords, converting them into boarding houses and low rental units"
It went on further to say;
"location of 48% of all county group homes are in Springfield (for deinstitutionalized treatment and care of the mentally ill) dramatizing the complete breakdown of neighborhood integrity."
1303, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 (now demolished) and 1325 LAURA became such an enclave and as with most Springfield properties, totally fenced, as if one unit. It was owned by Madge Luker Broward. 1303 a very large corner house, it was the kitchen, dining and meeting room facility , there may have been people living upstairs, I do not know, but the other four, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 and 1325 were purely dormitories. These houses had no kitchen - one bathroom , just sleeping areas. They were filled with human beings who needed professional help, not over crowding. 1303 is now privately owned, the rest of the properties are owned by Aries Medical Assn. LLC. I do not know if this entity is still registered, I cannot find the name is Sunbiz.org.
This group home(s) was just one of many in the neighborhood, witness what R/UDAT stated, in this one square mile, in a city of over 850 square miles, contained almost 50% of such county homes. Added this were the absentee landlords who packed poor souls in the other houses - to quote author Tim Gilmore, "like insects in cells". They even built on rickety additions and closed previously open areas, in order to pack in more and more. Fortunes were made off of this misery. Springfield was a very sad place, (Madge's was also), I was told when I bought my house "You are living in a war zone".
The fear for me is that brutal alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.
Chris Farley
Quote from: chris farley on February 12, 2017, 11:59:28 AM
I will get blasted but;
Firstly I am not anti disabled people, I an anti abuse of sadly needy people.
Ronald Reagan certainly seemed to start a new "business" when he stopped funding and closed facilities for people disabled by mental illnesses etc." It offered the chance for private establishment of replacement programs. Group homes sprang up - especially in Springfield. It seems that Springfield was the dumping ground for unfortunate people and other areas were not sorry to see this happen.
The R/UDAT report that led to the production of the overlay stated;
"Springfield is now occupied by a largely transient economically downscale population. Its fine old housing stock has become prey to speculators and absentee landlords, converting them into boarding houses and low rental units"
It went on further to say;
"location of 48% of all county group homes are in Springfield (for deinstitutionalized treatment and care of the mentally ill) dramatizing the complete breakdown of neighborhood integrity."
1303, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 (now demolished) and 1325 LAURA became such an enclave and as with most Springfield properties, totally fenced, as if one unit. It was owned by Madge Luker Broward. 1303 a very large corner house, it was the kitchen, dining and meeting room facility , there may have been people living upstairs, I do not know, but the other four, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 and 1325 were purely dormitories. These houses had no kitchen - one bathroom , just sleeping areas. They were filled with human beings who needed professional help, not over crowding. 1303 is now privately owned, the rest of the properties are owned by Aries Medical Assn. LLC. I do not know if this entity is still registered, I cannot find the name is Sunbiz.org.
This group home(s) was just one of many in the neighborhood, witness what R/UDAT stated, in this one square mile, in a city of over 850 square miles, contained almost 50% of such county homes. Added this were the absentee landlords who packed poor souls in the other houses - to quote author Tim Gilmore, "like insects in cells". They even built on rickety additions and closed previously open areas, in order to pack in more and more. Fortunes were made off of this misery. Springfield was a very sad place, (Madge's was also), I was told when I bought my house "You are living in a war zone".
The fear for me is that brutal alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.
Chris Farley
It must be noted that the RUDAT study dates back to 1984 and 1985. It was done under a grant to the University. It did state in the end that there were too many of the high density group care homes and intensive uses AT THE TIME IT WAS DONE.
The Overlay was passed in 2000 after many years of work by organizations like HSCC (Historic Springfield Community Council). By the way HSCC existed as it was determined it was needed by the RUDAT study even though at the time there were were two other long established community organizations, SPAR and WC/ SIA. I'll let others tell why that determination was made and only HSCC actually got funded through the City/ Federal grants. By the then most of what was to be called "Special Uses" were long gone. Two things should also be noted. One is the simply fact that without theses "terrible" uses, many if not most of the houses would have sat empty and been gone long ago and two, the percentages listed in the overlay at least included automotive "intensive" uses. Within a few years of the passing of the overlay, primary because of increased land values in spite of those "terrible" uses being here, the majority of the remaining "special Uses" closed.
Your comment:
The fear for me is that brutal alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.
Is so very far from the truth, it makes me laugh at the severe stupidity of the comment.
I will address it later as the boat is calling, but for now, you need to go back and actually read and perhaps try to understand the settlement agreement because your last bit about the "overburdened" is very wrong and well explained in the settlement and in this tread. Overall, Ms Farley, you are grossly showing your personal NIMBY-ism and it isn't very pretty.
Once again, it is not the fact that a few disabled may live in Springfield that is the real problem, it is the fear mongering by it's so-called leadership and a few of it's residents that is doing the harm.
What a joke. This demonizing of group care homes. Sure. There were plenty back in the 80s. But seriously? This CAUSED the decline of this neighborhood in the urban core? Come on.
Imagine what Springfield would have been like without this use? Would any houses still have remained? Who else wanted to occupy a neighborhood rich with prostitution, drugs, and the abject poverty that remained -- when all who could -- flew from the urban core?
To blame "intensive uses" for the decline in the urban core is like blaming the Churequeros. They didn't cause the pile of trash. Neither did group homes.
The middle class caused the decline when they beat their hasty retreat.
Its all just a cycle. White flight is the ping to gentrification's pong.
In the Times Union (Jacksonville.com) by the editorial board:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/2017-02-17/sunday-s-editorial-settling-discrimination-suit-right-move
The right type of article that promotes common sense and the proper action. It is what the so called leadership, SPAR COuncil and SIAA, should be saying.
The article does give a nod to the resident's concerns by stating:
QuoteThe opposition in Springfield was a mixture of justified concern and unjustified stereotypes.
The justified concern involves the fact that Springfield already contains more than its share of group facilities.
The unjustified stereotypes, as expressed by some residents in a public meeting in 2014, was imagining that these 12 residents were going to single-handedly ruin the neighborhood.
Here's why the "justifed" is not as far as the DOJ is concerned:
An important statement in the settlement revised Overlay language is...."in making the [reasonable accommodation] determination, it shall not be a factor whether there exist other neighborhoods or dwellings which could accommodate the disabled person."
This basically eliminates the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument many wish to use.
Meanwhile, yes, let's not risk folks like Jack Meeks and those of his ilk leading SPAR Council and the SIAA costing us tax payers potentially millions more by fighting this settlement. Tell them instead that their fear mongering is not wanted, their leadership not accepted and that you know that this settlement will not harm this community but rather make it stronger in the end.
The first public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes was held at last night's LUZ committee meeting. Below is a link to the video and the discussion on Bill 2017-36 begins at approximately 1 hour, 25 minutes in.
http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n (http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n)
Of the 23 people present, 22 were opposed to the ordinance changes (5 spoke on record) and 1 supported the changes (that 1 was me and I did speak on record). Official statements were made by Chris Farley on behalf of herself and SIAA, and Bill Hoff on behalf of SPAR.
Councilman Gaffney announced there were over 300 residents who were opposed to the changes and he will be hosting a Noticed Meeting on Monday at 3:00, NOT for questions from Councilmembers, but for the experts and the Springfield to talk about this for one hour. I found the information online here: http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif (http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif)
QuoteNotice is hereby given that Councilman Reggie Gaffney will meet to discuss legislation 2017 - 0036 on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. until 4:00pm; located at 117 West Duval Street, Lynwood Roberts Room, City Hall St. James Building. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Springfield Overlay
All interested parties are encouraged to attend.
I still do not understand why people keep saying the Overlay is being 'gutted' and by making these changes our neighborhood will be 'destroyed.' The changes simply remove the language that prevents facilities that provide housing for the disabled to locate in Springfield.
As it currently stands, the modified Overlay still refers to Chapter 656, Part 4 Supplementary Regulations, Subpart A Performance Standards and Development Criteria, Sec. 656.401. - Performance standards and development criteria of our Ordinance Code which places spacing requirements of 1,000 feet and 1,200 feet for Community Residential Homes and 1,000 feet for Group Care Homes. It seems neither Ability Housing nor the DOJ noticed this part.... And according to the JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE LAWS AND PRACTICES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT published in November, 2016 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download)), imposing a spacing requirement may also violate the Fair Housing Act. See below for an excerpt of that section.
Quote15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of group homes for persons with disabilities?
A "spacing" or "dispersal" requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas, any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.
I think Jacksonville is getting off easy. And mark my words...if City Council does not pass the Ordinance changes, the DOJ will simply strip the ENTIRE Springfield Overlay, not just the part that restricts special uses.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/baby-bathwater.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/baby-bathwater.jpg.html)
Lose the discriminatory language in the overlay or lose the overlay.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on February 23, 2017, 09:54:01 AM
The first public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes was held at last night's LUZ committee meeting. Below is a link to the video and the discussion on Bill 2017-36 begins at approximately 1 hour, 25 minutes in.
http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n (http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n)
Of the 23 people present, 22 were opposed to the ordinance changes (5 spoke on record) and 1 supported the changes (that 1 was me and I did speak on record). Official statements were made by Chris Farley on behalf of herself and SIAA, and Bill Hoff on behalf of SPAR.
Councilman Gaffney announced there were over 300 residents who were opposed to the changes and he will be hosting a Noticed Meeting on Monday at 3:00, NOT for questions from Councilmembers, but for the experts and the Springfield to talk about this for one hour. I found the information online here: http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif (http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif)
QuoteNotice is hereby given that Councilman Reggie Gaffney will meet to discuss legislation 2017 - 0036 on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. until 4:00pm; located at 117 West Duval Street, Lynwood Roberts Room, City Hall St. James Building. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Springfield Overlay
All interested parties are encouraged to attend.
I still do not understand why people keep saying the Overlay is being 'gutted' and by making these changes our neighborhood will be 'destroyed.' The changes simply remove the language that prevents facilities that provide housing for the disabled to locate in Springfield.
As it currently stands, the modified Overlay still refers to Chapter 656, Part 4 Supplementary Regulations, Subpart A Performance Standards and Development Criteria, Sec. 656.401. - Performance standards and development criteria of our Ordinance Code which places spacing requirements of 1,000 feet and 1,200 feet for Community Residential Homes and 1,000 feet for Group Care Homes. It seems neither Ability Housing nor the DOJ noticed this part.... And according to the JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE LAWS AND PRACTICES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT published in November, 2016 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download)), imposing a spacing requirement may also violate the Fair Housing Act. See below for an excerpt of that section.
Quote15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of group homes for persons with disabilities?
A "spacing" or "dispersal" requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas, any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.
I think Jacksonville is getting off easy. And mark my words...if City Council does not pass the Ordinance changes, the DOJ will simply strip the ENTIRE Springfield Overlay, not just the part that restricts special uses.
So few people have the moral courage to speak their minds when they know it will cost them a good old neighborhood shun-fest. She is that type of person.
She made Springfield look good last night.
As many know, Bill 2017-36 contains the modified zoning code as a result of the Ability Housing and DOJ fair housing lawsuit.
FYI - At their 02/23/17 meeting, the staff recommended approval of the Bill and the Planning Commission voted to APPROVE the zoning changes associated with Bill 2017-36.
Here's a link to the Results Agenda:
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/current-planning-division/planning-commission-docs/2017/results-agenda/02-23-17-results-agenda.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/current-planning-division/planning-commission-docs/2017/results-agenda/02-23-17-results-agenda.aspx)
The item can be found under Section IV. Ordinances, #4: Ordinance 2017-36
They are not stopping any time soon, either:
Settlement agreement heads to council that will impact Jacksonville Zning
Jacksonville Business Journa, Feb 28, 2017, 8:11am EST; Updated Feb 28, 2017, 10:02am EST
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/02/28/settlement-agreement-heads-to-council-that-will.html
It should not stop. These changes NEED to be made. Full City Council will hold a Public Hearing tonight on the issue. Then next week it's back to LUZ for a final Public Hearing and their vote.
Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant the opposition to the settlement, and therefore the resolution of the lawsuit, is not stopping any time soon. From the article:
"Gaffney said he wanted the meeting to share with other council members a groundswell of discontent from his constituents about the impact of the settlement agreement on Springfield and other impacts it could have on zoning across the city."
Groundswell? Really?
"Christina Parrish Stone, executive president of SPAR, told the City Council members she believed the settlement agreement would gut the zoning overlay designed for the historic neighborhood."
"Jack Meeks, a Springfield resident and long-time CPA in the community, said he believed the city shouldn't settle, calling the lawsuit a winnable case."
"Gaffney said while he understands both sides, if he had to vote on Tuesday, he would likely not support the settlement agreement. "
I attended the City Council meeting earlier this evening where public comment was heard on this issue. Thought I'd provide an update free of conjecture.
Council is granting more time for subject matter experts and COJ staff to discuss possible improvements to the proposed Overlay settlement, as requested by SPAR and the community. That's great news and will likely result in a better outcome than what was originally proposed.
However, it continues to be concerning that some are still conflating SPAR wanting a more thorough process for possible zoning changes, per usual, and SPAR being anti-any particular person. One does not equal the other, and it's not difficult to differentiate between the two issues.
Heck, even Mr. Hays, who runs a current "special use" facility in Springfield, the Alco House, spoke in agreement with SPAR's position.
Here's the issue I personally have with Mr Hoff's statement above. Most people only have the information about this settlement as presented by SPAR Council and SIAA. Neither organization is giving out the complete and truthful facts of this issue. In fact, the primary leader of the charge that got us (the City of Jacksonville) into this mess and is costing us tax payers millions is also the primary one giving out the misinformation. That would be DIA member and CPA, Jack Meeks. Along with long time Springfield resident and developer, Michael Trautman. While both of these men and several of the others have promoted and done good things for the community in the past, they have traditionally failed as true leaders in that they have this habit of siding with the negative and discriminatory rather than the positive and the inclusive.
The truth here is that the only language that is being changed is the discriminatory language and I cannot nor can others, who are reading the original overlay and the settlement version with an open mind, find anything that is being changed that will harm the community nor the city of Jacksonville in any way. In fact, a summary, prepared by AB's attorney, has only one issue that is about what rather than who (and the assessment in that summary is wrong. That is the concept that a low density residential community home can have any fence it wishes. That is not what happens; fences are still under the purview of the HPC. )
The changes talk about who can live in Historic Springfield primarily and it only addresses the discriminatory issues caused by the overlay. It talks about the actions of both the City and the residents of Historic Springfield over the Ability Housing issues. Therefore, it appears the only possible changes to settlement version of the overlay would be to increase the possibility of discrimination. With the talk about past sins of old long gone and now illegal facilities, with the assertion that we have too many now, how can anyone looking in on this not start to think it is still about WHO rather than WHAT? The WHAT is still covered in the settlement. The WHAT is brought in line such that it is now equal to the rest of Jacksonville. The WHO will now be guaranteed the civil rights they deserve. How can anyone reasonable not think that in itself is a good thing?
There is a lot of talk about the changes being not properly done and needing more thoughtful input. I would agree that this is a legitimate concern of the opposition (and not about WHO) if I was hearing a desire to not block the changes, but rather add in some much needed changes to the overlay. There is a time limitation on this settlement so that could be used to leverage things like more friendly signage or easier mixed use applications. Instead, all I read in the emails sent to City Council is how badly Springfield is being treated and how much damage this is going to do to the community. Some even go as far as spelling out the fact that it is indeed the WHO that they fear. All I really hear from the opposition is Springfield needs protected from THOSE people.
We seem to find ourselves in a world where alternative news and deflection from the truth is OK and acceptable to some. I hope that the residents of Historic Springfield and the members of City Council are above that and that they embrace the honest and truthful facts and do not give in to the unfounded fears being broadcast by the opposition.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/03/01/changes-to-zoning-laws-historic-springfield-draws.html
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 28, 2017, 11:01:19 PM
I attended the City Council meeting earlier this evening where public comment was heard on this issue. Thought I'd provide an update free of conjecture.
Council is granting more time for subject matter experts and COJ staff to discuss possible improvements to the proposed Overlay settlement, as requested by SPAR and the community. That's great news and will likely result in a better outcome than what was originally proposed.
However, it continues to be concerning that some are still conflating SPAR wanting a more thorough process for possible zoning changes, per usual, and SPAR being anti-any particular person. One does not equal the other, and it's not difficult to differentiate between the two issues.
Heck, even Mr. Hays, who runs a current "special use" facility in Springfield, the Alco House, spoke in agreement with SPAR's position.
MEETING WITH CITY, ABILITY HOUSING AND SPAR TO DISCUSS OVERLAY CHANGESAt SPAR's request, CM Gaffney arranged a meeting between SPAR, Ability Housing and their attorney, and the City attorney in order to provide input into the Overlay changes being proposed. That meeting was held on Monday, 03/13/17; I was the only Springfield resident in attendance and I took notes and provided a recap.
Before reading the recap, let's go back to SPAR's official statement and refresh our memory:
QuoteOn Monday evening the Board of Directors of Springfield Preservation and Revitalization Council, Inc. (SPAR) held a special meeting to review proposed City of Jacksonville Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69. The board members in attendance voted unanimously to oppose this legislation, on the grounds that the recommended changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations were drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district. Further, the proposed changes do not accomplish the stated goal of the settlement agreement, which is to protect the rights of disabled citizens to live wherever they choose in Jacksonville. Instead, the effect of the agreement is to single out Springfield to be the default and de facto area in Jacksonville for disabled housing.
After hearing of SPAR's issues, in my opinion, none of the issues brought up equate to "gutting the overlay" and causing severe damage to Springfield. I did not hear anything that would lead me to believe SPAR is concerned about the changes being "deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville." In fact, the ONLY part of the Springfield Overlay that was mentioned was parking. The other issues brought up were related to changes in OTHER parts of the ordinance.
The recap is below:
QuoteThe meeting SPAR requested between CM Gaffney, the City attorney Jason Teal, Ability Housing and SPAR to discuss the overlay concerns was held yesterday. Attendees: CM Gaffney, Jason Teal (city atty), Shannon Nazworth and Tonya Adams (Ability Housing), Thomas Ingram (Ability Housing atty), Paul Harden (attorney for Jack Meeks/JoAnn Tredennick, although he said he was not present to represent them) and myself. Although Christina Parrish was out of the country, she had met with Jason the previous week and shared SPAR's concerns. I'll try to recap them here:
- Parking requirements: SPAR wants to be sure Springfield is consistent with other multi-family use requirements. The current overlay has no parking requirements for multi-family. Are there any parking requirements that can be put into place, consistent with what other neighborhoods have in place? (This was a long discussion – almost 25 minutes)
- Kim – mentioned we are talking about multi-family properties that do not have anything to do with the settlement.
- Tom – mentioned there are other parking stipulations in the overall zoning code and suggested SPAR go back and review the existing code.
- Paul – the issue is not really multi-family, but now you'll have multi-family properties that provide supportive services, which means there will be more people coming to the area causes parking issues.
- Shannon – brought up anyone in Springfield can have anyone come visit them at any time now. This is not related to the settlement at all. She encouraged the City to look at the other zoning overlay issues once the settlement is complete.
- Paul – tried to compare the parking issue to a complex at 44th/Pearl. Kim asked Paul to confirm the project he was talking about was new construction – yes. Well, you cannot compare that project to a Springfield residence when it comes to parking. Paul then stated if you had one room/occupant who had someone come visit every day would not cause a parking issue; however, if you had 12 rooms with each having someone visit every day, that would cause a parking issue. (Kim after thought: that could potentially happen now)
- Tom – Bottom line is you can't have something different for those with disabilities than you do for someone who does not have a disability.
- Administrative deviations for request reasonable accommodations: SPAR's concern is the zoning administrator would be making that determination in a vacuum. The suggestion was to modify the ordinance to require a recommendation by the Fair Housing Compliance Officer regarding all requests for reasonable accommodations that do not go through a public hearing. Another set of eyes on the request by someone who is familiar with fair housing because Zoning are not 'experts'.
- Kim – doesn't see an issue with making that change.
- Tom – does not necessarily agree with the change at this time; if changed, agreement would have to be obtained from all plaintiffs; the City is expected to comply with Fair Housing laws; concerned about the bureaucracy and delaying any decision.
- Jason – decisions would still be required to meet all required timeframes
- Shannon – requested that the requested verbiage be presented to them so that they can see what will be changed; concerned the settlement deadline is fast approaching.
- Jason – ideally they would propose an amendment at the next committee meeting to modify the language; he will make the change and submit to the parties for review.
- Shannon – ideally what they are looking for is to make sure people with disabilities get reasonable accommodations they need in a timely manner; if this change facilitates that, she does not foresee a problem with it.
- Paul – to put it in context, all he wants is for people who want to run a liquor to get their waiver of distance in a timely manner, so he'd like to not have to have a public hearing on that request. He doesn't think it's as simple as what Shannon was suggesting.
- Jason – explained a lot of these requests are based on medical conditions which are protected by HIPPA, etc.; he fought this provision but the DOJ came back and said there's embarrassment and HIPPA issues which was the motivation for not requiring a public hearing.
- Paul – don't make this a zoning issue; make it a civil rights issue.
- Jason – explained this must be handled by someone who is familiar with zoning issues; that person must also be familiar with fair housing.
- SPAR requested a commitment from CM Gaffney to re-visit and perform a complete review of the Springfield overlay.
- CM Gaffney said he can do that.
- Wants to make sure that Springfield is treated the same as any other historic district. 656.109(i) specifically calls out Riverside/Avondale.
- Kim – there are at least three historic districts; if we add Springfield, we need to also add Ortega and possibly Downtown.
- Gaffney – asked if SPAR was asking for this to go into the settlement or could it be addressed after the settlement.
- Jason – that's up to you guys.
- Paul – this would fall into the category of an addition to, not an objection to the current zoning proposal. This issue is unrelated to the issues that sparked the lawsuit.
- Kim – pointed out this section of the ordinance was not modified with the settlement agreement.
- Definition of Multiple Dwelling uses – SPAR is concerned about a portion of the verbiage added. They are requesting "Ancillary services whose primary purpose is to support tenants may be located onsite, including but not limited to laundry facilities, day care and after-school programs for children, gymnasiums, swimming pools, concierge services, and coordination of care for disabled persons which are within the scope of supportive services." Be modified to state "Ancillary services whose primary purpose is to support tenants and which shall not be open to the public may be located onsite, including but not limited to laundry facilities, day care and after-school programs for children, gymnasiums, swimming pools, concierge services, and coordination of care for disabled persons which are within the scope of supportive services."
- Paul – if we could agree on the definition of this it may solve all the other issues with parking, etc.
- Tom – suggested SPAR work quickly to provide verbiage; concerns were brought up that this change will affect all areas of Jacksonville, not just Springfield and this change may not be valid.
- Shannon – she understands why the verbiage change is being requested, however doesn't want to create a problem that doesn't currently exist.
- Tom – believes the current language addresses that now by stating "primary purpose".
- Jason – asked if we could do anything with that sentence? Stated SPAR is not absolutely opposed to this ordinance; they would like to see some changes made if for no other reason than to allow the residents of Springfield and the members of SPAR to achieve something so they can feel they were a participant in this process. That said, is there any way we can amend the sentence?
- Shannon – asked if there had ever been an issue
- Tom – reiterated the current language is sufficient and shared concerns that making the requested change could have unintended consequences on all of Jacksonville.
- Jason – asked again if there was anything we could add to this sentence so that it gave the people of Springfield something?
- Tom – you'd need to run the language by the other plaintiffs and the Planning Department
- Kim – suggested if Jason was looking for something to change...seems the easiest one would be to add Springfield and Ortega to the 656.109(i) section, especially since that part of the ordinance was not touched as a result of the settlement agreement.
- Definition of Dwelling Unit – SPAR is concerned with the following sentence: "A dwelling unit is not considered a rooming house, substance abuse treatment facility, group care home or community residential home by virtue of the residents receiving supportive services on a less than 24 hour per day basis." Technically that means supportive services could be given for 23 hours and 59 minutes. Is there any way to put a limitation on that to reduce the intensity?
- Shannon – gave an example of someone with a very sick elderly person living at home and someone was there 24 hours/day. That is allowed by right.
- Paul – suggested supportive services can be 24 hours/day or 365 days/year, but not both.
- Kim – suggested moving that sentence from the Dwelling Unit definition and placing it in the Rooming House definition; in other words, rather than trying to define what a Dwelling Unit is not, define what a Rooming House is.
- Jason – the overall intent is to say that just because someone receives supportive services in a Dwelling does not make the Dwelling a Rooming House.
- Kim – if a residential dwelling had supportive services 24/7/365, does that change the use?
- Jason – that's what we're trying to accommodate here; the expectation is that the services are for a limited duration.
- Shannon – we have to be careful to not create more unintended consequences.
- Tom – suggests SPAR go back to the definitions; an effort was made to not expand the definition of dwelling unit so broadly as to encompass assisted living, nursing homes, etc. Offered to review specific verbiage.
- Kim – brought up the supportive services listed in the ordinance change are not those that could really be provided on a 24/7/365 day basis; based on that, perhaps changes to this section are not warranted; need to be very careful that we don't cause harm to anyone else either.
- Jason – suggested making a small change to the supportive services definition to include the term 'incidental' to in some way try to clarify it a bit.
- Tom – willing to review verbiage changes.
- $1.5M Grant for Permanent Supportive Housing – SPAR asked if a condition could be placed on the grant funding that it was for areas of Jacksonville that are outside of Downtown or areas immediately outside of Downtown, or incentivize them to locate in an area without existing permanent supportive housing or other similar uses.
- Tom – asked if the concern was SPAR did not want this grant project to go into the Springfield area
- Jason – said if he read between the lines, yes. But there is some merit to allowing incentivizing the location to be mixed in with communities that don't have an over-abundance of these.
- Shannon – Jacksonville does not have any permanent supportive housing projects in Springfield
- Jason – agreed
- Tom – none of the plaintiffs would agree to that
- Kim – the current settlement does not preclude the City to incentivize the location
- Shannon – permanent supportive housing always needs to go where there is the greatest need
- Tom – clarified the grant does not require the project to go into Springfield; it can go anywhere in the City
This is worth reading: The latter part of the article addresses the Ability Housing situation: http://folioweekly.com/not-in-my-backyard,17165
A nice and informative write up frpom Ability Housing on the settlement:
https://abilityhousing.org/settlement-agreement/
From Jacksonville.com:
QuoteFrom the start, the opposition to allowing disabled veterans into a 12-unit apartment complex in Springfield has been extreme.
And now that City Council is considering a $2 million settlement over a discrimination lawsuit, the opponents have shown they still don't get it.
Take for example, the admission of Springfield resident Jack Meeks last year in a deposition that he had spent over $100,000 fighting the complex. He's not done.
And now elite zoning lawyer Paul Harden has turned up to advocate for the Springfield residents.
This isn't normal.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-03-22/thursday-s-editorial-city-council-needs-approve-ability-housing
You would think the TU would go to greater pains to be accurate. They appear to have been given the PR spin kool-aid.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 23, 2017, 05:41:41 PM
You would think the TU would go to greater pains to be accurate. They appear to have been given the PR spin kool-aid.
What specific details of the editorial qualifies as "PR spin kool-aid"?
^
First, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.
The issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.
But, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:
"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"
- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.
"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."
- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.
"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."
- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.
"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."
- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.
"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."
- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.
"nimbyism on steroids"
- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.
Anyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.
Bill Hoff's obviously the one who can do great with the "PR spin Koolaid". So much of what you posted, Bill, is very wrong, but you know that. When work gives me a chance, Bill, I'll explain the facts to you and correct your very misleading post.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 23, 2017, 07:39:14 PM
^
First, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.
The issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.
But, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:
"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"
- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.
"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."
- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.
"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."
- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.
"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."
- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.
"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."
- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.
"nimbyism on steroids"
- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.
Anyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.
Let's take a look at your claims here, bill.
QuoteFirst, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.
Yes, the project is dead. However, it is one of the most relevant things to this settlement as its demise is the reason for the settlement. As to the Times Union believing that the settlement is going to allow that particular project to move forward, that is something being expressed only in your mind., not in this article.
QuoteThe issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.
This settlement and the settlement changes to the overlay has indeed gone through the proper process. It has been properly written and reviewed by experts It has been introduced and discussed. Public comments have been taken. And now, if common sense prevails, it will be voted on and passed. Exactly what part of this has not been proper? That the public outcry by a few in Springfield has not been allowed to rewrite the code back to a discriminatory stance?
QuoteBut, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:
Again, just a reminder here, this dead project is exact why we have this settlement, or rather it was the discrimination against this project, the very discrimination that caused its demise, that is costing us tax payers this 2 million dollars and requiring the changes to the overlay.
Quote"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"
- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.
Yes, of course, what about the children! Well, what about the children? They were there in the area when the drug dealers were there. They were close by when a double murder happened at this apartment building; without Ability Housing owning it, I might add. So where was this concern for the children before and after Ability Housings project died?
Now a few other facts. Housing first is exactly that. Get them housed and then see to their other needs. And the now "dead project" was not "place and forget" or did you forget the basis of why the use was declared to be "akin" to special uses like group care homes. It was because while the services were not on site nor provided directly by Ability Housing, those needed services were indeed being offered to the disabled residents. In addition, the data from the housing first model says it is pretty successful. 100%? No, but then the neighborhood isn't exactly 100 % problem or crime free without Ability Housing and the 12 formerly homeless, disabled, possibly veterans there, now is it?
Oh, and did you also forget or decide to ignore that fact that Ability Housing actually has improved the crime rates around their other Jacksonville projects? And "including homicide"? Wow, digging deep into the unfounded BS with that one.
Quote"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."
- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.
No spoon feeding needed when real facts are used rather than innuendo and alternative interpretation. The bottom line with NOLA was this: The actions taken were to grossly discriminate against the disabled (please remember, to discriminate against a provider of "reasonable accommodations" and the needs of the disabled is the same as discriminating against the disabled individually) therefore, legal action was taken and a settlement worked out that fit the crime. The bottom line with the Ability Housing issue and Jacksonville: The actions taken by the community and the City were to grossly discriminate against the disabled and so legal action was taken and a settlement was worked out that fit the crime. So, in a way, you are right. They are different. We are getting off far, far easier than NOLA. Bringing in the size of the city and calling it lazy to compare the two cases is disingenuous. None of the matters; only the act of discrimination does and it was done in basically the same way and definitively for the same reasons in both cases. To put it in a more simple fashion. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the size of the city in which it occurs.
Quote"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."
- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.
Newsflash: The vast majority of the changes to zoning has to do with eliminating the term "special use". It is a discriminatory term created for and only used in the Historic Springfield overlay. The other changes that do indeed effect the rest of Jacksonville are a few changes to definitions and the language the now guarantees the rights of the disabled will not be ignored like it was over the Ability Housing issue. It simply insures that an service provider like Ability Housing can buy an apartment building and rent it to the formerly homeless and the disabled and veterans and not have it called illegal. Can anyone guess where that has happened to date, the calling of a apartment being rented to a disabled person illegal? The answer is: Only Historic Springfield. Ability Housing has opened several facilities in several other areas of Jacksonville so it appears that the changes being made will not have this terrible effect some seem to be claiming. Most who have read the changes with an open mind see that there is no danger here. Here's another fact for you. If there are concerns from other areas of Jacksonville over this settlement, they have only Jack Meeks and others of like mind, like you, to blame. I hope they realize that.
Quote"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."
- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.
Let's see, not "
destroy" but SPAR Council has said it will "
gut" the overlay. SIAA has used the terms "how
devastating the outcome could be " "potentially
harmful to future development of the historic district " has also been used. Hard to justify a complaint about using the word "
destroy" when comparing it to "
devastating" and "
gut", is it not? And I'm glad that you have admitted to us that folks like Michael Trautmann, Jacks Meeks, and Christina Parrish are not being credible when they talk about how this settlement will "gut" or be "devastating to " (destroy) the overlay.
And as can be easily seen by all who bother to read the list of changes, nothing is being done that is not ADA/ Fair Housing related. And if you bother to check with the actual people who have been working on this, it has not bee an unthoughtful process.
Quote"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."
- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.
This was explained and Ability Housing never said it was only Veterans. So what? Are you now saying if it was, it would have been alright? The community never would have had that floor stomping, all but a lynch mob meeting?
Quote"nimbyism on steroids"
- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.
You may wish to refresh you memory as to what nimbyism is. Apparently you have no idea. After you look up that definition, you may wish to read the overlay, review the ordinance 2007-1046 public comment minutes and the outcry over that, review a few SPAR Council meeting notes , like the one that the then President of SPAR Council said that if you rent an illegal rooming house to the right people, it is just fine.
QuoteAnyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.
Sigh. After Jack Meeks has spent over $100,000.00 fighting this, you would think he would have the Times Union eating out of his hand. Instead he has you. And the knowledge that regardless of how much money you spend, sometimes the truth wins out. In this case, the Times Union has it right.
For all your talk about the technical stuff, all the attempts at deflecting away from why you really do not want this settlement, the real reason for the opposition to the settlement is found in a few simple statements.
Here's one from the ED of SPAR Council - We can work with the City to ensure that the grant application includes requirements that will prevent a developer like Ability from trying to
sneak something into a neighborhood like they did with Cottage."
As you can see, nothing learned here. Ability Housing was buying an apartment building, nothing more.
Or this from a recent meeting summary:
$1.5M Grant for Permanent Supportive Housing –
SPAR asked if a condition could be placed on the grant funding that it was for areas of Jacksonville that are outside of Downtown or areas immediately outside of Downtown, or incentivize them to locate in an area without existing permanent supportive housing or other similar uses.
Tom –
asked if the concern was SPAR did not want this grant project to go into the Springfield areaJason – said if he read
between the lines, yes.
This settlement is our best hope to avoid far worse. And to reaffirm that our City, that we, the residents, will not allow the discrimination by a few define our city; to define us.
anybody have a TL;DR
Quote from: lastdaysoffla on March 26, 2017, 05:39:45 PM
anybody have a TL;DR
OK, here's a shorter answer. Jack Meeks paid out 100K to be able to commit a crime (discrimination against the disabled) and have the City as a co-conspirator. Now the City wants to take a very kind deal and move on. Jack Meeks, with Bill Hoff's help, wants to not only continue to commit that crime but get a better deal to boot. Sort of like knowing you committed a crime and are facing a possible life sentence and turning down community service because you still like committing that crime and so just want to go free so you can do it some more. One is the smart move, take the settlement offer and learn your lesson. The other is just plain dumb.
Better?
I can't seem to get it to actual post here, but there is another noticed meeting about the settlement happening somewhere (the letter did not say where, but we can assume City Hall?) being held by Danny Becton, District 11. It will be on Monday April 10, 2017, 3 to 6 PM. It states that Jason Teal will run the meeting and go through the zoning changes line by line. Also invited to make comments and suggestions will be:
Tom Ingram - Lawyer for Ability Housing.
Paul Harden - representing Springfield - I have issues with this. Paul Harden is not donating his time so who is paying him? I also believe Paul Harden is representing only whomever is paying him (we can guess perhaps Jack Meeks) and so should NOT be considered as truly representing the majority of the residents in any way.
Christina Parrish - As ED of SPAR Council. While I understand why she was invited , I do have issues with the fact that SPAR Council actually only represents the minority in Springfield and therefore the position SPAR Council takes on issues should not be given the weight it often is.
I would prefer to have a more varied list of invitees to include some of the more vocal proponents of the settlement, like Kim Pryor for the Urban Core CPAC, but it is what it is.
The notice also states that this meeting will be controlled and will be about the zoning issues not the original issue or the merits of the lawsuit and settlement. Public comments will be accepted.
This could be a good thing and it could move this settlement forward and get it passed as it needs to be. Or it could allow the few to make changes that allows the continued discrimination on the part of folks like Jack Meeks and SPAR Council leadership. Hopefully though folks will listen to Mr Teal and common sense will prevail.
If someone could post it from Facebook or other, it would be great.
An article talking about the who and what of the noticed meeting.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/235814-jacksonville-city-councilors-mull-springfield-overlay-zoning-changes
^ he actually left before the most interesting parts near the end.
In summary, only 15 of 40+ pages were reviewed in the 3 hours allotted. Multiple issues were found that Council members want to address/fix before moving forward. Causes of these various issues, as mentioned at the meeting, range from the Ability Housing attorney basically writing the settlement language himself, to OGC's motivation to settle rather than have a quality document that works for everyone, to the Planning Dept missing items they should have caught while reviewing. A shade meeting was also suggested, due to the nature of the concerns. OGC is going to request an extension from the April 30th deadline.
Hate to say I told you so....but I told you so. It's a flawed document, and the more City Council digs into it, the more they see needed changes prior to approving.
Good to see it receiving the examination it deserves.
Hate to say I told you so but since many of us said that the discrimination against Ability Housing's potential residents was going to end up here with a federal lawsuit and a required settlement, there is more of chance that we are right about this settlement than you and yours are.
With hired guns (Paul Harden and Alberta Hipps) there, I am not surprised that "concerns" were raised. I am not surprised that people, and council members are just people after all, are afraid that those people may end up in their communities that "concerns" were raised and that Jack Meeks' paid for "concerns" were given more weight than they deserve.
I'm looking forward to seeing a list of "missing items [the planning department] should have caught while reviewing". And a more detailed reporting of what transpired at the meeting.
In case anyone was wondering, this discusses "shade meetings". I actually think, as long as the meeting is the city and the attorney's for Ability Housing and other plaintiffs and NOT the hired guns like Paul Harden and Alberta Hipps, this would be a good idea.
https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/7BFBAA75A047022D85256E5F0073B526
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-04-21/settlement-housing-suit-hits-snag
It appears our council persons are not as smart as we had hoped. Stop and realize that the only thing this settlement does city wide to our zoning is add language that insures people with disabilities can apply for reasonable accommodation, something that they always have had the right to do. Stop and realize that the vast majority of changes to our zoning code involves the removal of language that was always discriminatory and only found in the Historic Springfield overlay that covers one square mile. That the changes make opening a high density group care home the same all over Jacksonville (by exception) rather than only impossible in Historic Springfield. That a private citizen, Jack Meeks, has spent over $100,000.00 to stop 12 disabled persons from living in Historic Springfield and is still spending his money to insure disabled persons continue to have a hard time getting the reasonable accommodations they may need to live anywhere. That some council persons are actually siding with those that wish to continue to discriminate.
Kudos to Ability Housing and their lawyer who have given us the extra time to find our way back to common sense and to this settlement rather than go forward to court where we, as a City, stand to lose much more than the 2 million this settlement would cost us.
And perhaps it is time to truly ask why someone like Jack Meeks would spend that kind of money to prevent 12 disabled persons from living in Historic Springfield when the community has many more pressing issues like drug dealing and double homicides. Why city elected officials listen to him and his paid lawyer Paul Harden when the city lawyers and expert planners advise them to accept this settlement. Why this City has a past history of gross discrimination and always has paid a price for that but continues to strive to discriminate at will.
The settlement has been modified and passed by City Council. The changes made were mostly wordage changes. Meaning changes that did not change the intent of the settlement but rather either added a small additional requirement or tried to make it seem like the community of Springfield and Jacks Meeks got something for the money and effort they put forth.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/city-council-approves-settlement-over-homeless-housing-in-springfield
and
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/238617-jacksonville-closes-book-disability-rights-dispute-settlement-bills
While under the approved version of the zoning changes and the Historic Springfield overlay it is a bit more complex to ask for and get reasonable accommodations (the planning director now does them and they will require public notifications) the bottom line its this.
If Ability Housing were to try to do Cottage Avenue today, we would have a nicely renovated 12 unit apartment building rented to 12 formerly homeless people and they would not have had to subject themselves to the horrendous public meetings, being called names and being told first they would be legal and then after Jack Meeks began spending his money, being told they could not do it. Today, it could be done by right.
I wonder if it was truly worth the $ 100,000.00 plus spent by Jack Meeks to stop ability housing to him and his wife? I know that he could not stop them today so someone will be coming. And I also know it was not worth all of us taxpayers helping to foot the 2 million dollar cost for this settlement to allow a few people in Springfield and Jacks Meeks to be able to discriminate against Ability Housing. What a shame as I'm sure something else could have used that 2 million as they have to pull that money from somewhere.
Good to see a variety of improvements made to the legislation before it passed, like I & others had been urging. The community wanted more changes, but that's life. Can't always get 100% of what you want. What's the saying? What's legal isn't always right, and what's right isn't always legal. And so it goes.
I suspect Ability Housing leadership learned a great deal from their self-initiated disaster: engage the community they would like to work in prior to, not after, making big plans there. Protocol 101. Could have saved themselves a lot of effort, time, bad PR and cash. Glad they survived It, they do good work overall.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 24, 2017, 08:42:33 PM
Good to see a variety of improvements made to the legislation before it passed, like I & others had been urging. The community wanted more changes, but that's life. Can't always get 100% of what you want. What's the saying? What's legal isn't always right, and what's right isn't always legal. And so it goes.
I suspect Ability Housing leadership learned a great deal from their self-initiated disaster: engage the community they would like to work in prior to, not after, making big plans there. Protocol 101. Could have saved themselves a lot of effort, time, bad PR and cash. Glad they survived It, they do good work overall.
First, blaming Ability housing for this fiasco is disingenuous and even laughable. They did do their homework, they were doing nothing but buying and renting an apartment building. The Planning Director at the time said it was legal for them to do that. They had it in writing from the planning department that it was OK. It was the historic Springfield Community leaders that caused the issues and the lawsuits. It was the community meetings were Ability Housing was villianized and the crowd whipped up into a frenzy by Jack Meeks and other so called community leaders that caused the City to reverse itself, create a new interpretation of the overlay and made the very renting to the disabled if they needed help from outside services illegal in Historic Springfield. It was the few who could not stand the idea of 12 formerly homeless, disabled, possibly veterans moving into their neighborhood who caused this mess not Ability Housing nor any formerly homeless person. It was Jack Meeks and others just like you, Bill Hoff, who cost all of us tax payers in Jacksonville Florida two million dollars. All because you wished to discriminate against the disabled.
By the way, how do I know it WAS legal? Read the settlement. They can do it without notifying you today and there would be nothing you could do to stop it. Your post, by the way shows that you did not learn anything and so I'm sure you will try to stop the disabled from moving into your community again.
A reasonable article from the editorial page of Jacksonville.com
QuoteDISABLED PEOPLE WIN
Good government was in action when City Council approved 16-3 a settlement of a lawsuit that ensures disabled people won't be discriminated against in the city's planning and zoning system.
It's a shame that a lawsuit was necessary, but Ability Housing had no other option when its proposed 12-unit complex in Springfield was denied zoning approval under suspicious circumstances.
Reasons given for opposing the complex flew far afield of usual zoning complaints and focused on the possibility that disabled people would ruin the historic neighborhood. All kinds of "what-if" scenarios were suggested by opponents, the kind that led Disability Rights Florida and the U.S. Justice Department to join the lawsuit.
This was NIMBYISM gone wild. The shame is that many of the neighbors are progressive on many other issues.
Springfield residents have every right to protect their neighborhood. But when it came to opposing a complex because it contains disabled people — that flies in the face of the Americans With Disabilies Act and the Fair Housing Law.
Reasonable amendments were made to the settlement to avoid unintended consequences during about nine hours of deliberations led by City Councilman Danny Becton, chairman of the council's Land Use and Zoning Committee.
Ability Housing will receive $400,000 and Disability Rights Florida $25,000. Jacksonville also will be basically required to replace the lost housing complex with a $1.5 million in supportive housing for people with disabilities.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 24, 2017, 08:42:33 PM
Good to see a variety of improvements made to the legislation before it passed, like I & others had been urging. The community wanted more changes, but that's life. Can't always get 100% of what you want. What's the saying? What's legal isn't always right, and what's right isn't always legal. And so it goes.
I suspect Ability Housing leadership learned a great deal from their self-initiated disaster: engage the community they would like to work in prior to, not after, making big plans there. Protocol 101. Could have saved themselves a lot of effort, time, bad PR and cash. Glad they survived It, they do good work overall.
There is no universe in which discriminating against veterans and the disabled is right. It happens to be both wrong and illegal.
When crackheads are considered disabled for smoking said crack, the line blurs quite a bit : )
One person's crack house is another person's "house of disabled people", per se.
At any rate, glad the melodrama is over....but the conclusion has put a bunch of amateur zoning, policy, counseling & law advice-givers out of the posting business. We still want to read ill-informed opinions!
I've followed this off and on for a bit and I guess one question that I may have missed, is there any prerequisite for one to reside here? Drug testing? Criminal background check? Military discharge papers?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 26, 2017, 01:33:54 PM
When crackheads are considered disabled for smoking said crack, the line blurs quite a bit : )
One person's crack house is another person's "house of disabled people", per se.
At any rate, glad the melodrama is over....but the conclusion has put a bunch of amateur zoning, policy, counseling & law advice-givers out of the posting business. We still want to read ill-informed opinions!
Ha, Ha. Actually those currently using illegal drugs are not protected under ADA and Fair Housing so not disabled and not having anything to do with this settlement. But you know that, you just thought your comment was cute. It wasn't. It just showed your prejudices.
As to crack houses, one persons expensive single family home may be that someone's crack house extraordinaire. I'm sure though this is not the end as you and others of like mind will do something stupid and discriminate again soon.
Quote from: camarocane on May 26, 2017, 01:47:33 PM
I've followed this off and on for a bit and I guess one question that I may have missed, is there any prerequisite for one to reside here? Drug testing? Criminal background check? Military discharge papers?
By here, are you talking about Historic Springfield? It sometimes seems that way......
A nice follow up article:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549944