Metro Jacksonville

Apparently SPAR has finally lost it.

We have evidence that SPAR is trying to pass legislation that will make it illegal for people to live in the same household unless they are related by blood or marriage.

In the pursuit of a fairly insane bit of legal stalking and harrassment, it appears that the troubled organization is prepared to make unmarried couples, college roommates, gay people and foster children hit the street.

The Organization has suggested legislation that would define "Family" for the first time, and open the City of Jacksonville to rampant litigation by a broad spectrum of public interest groups.

The Family, as defined by SPAR would consist of no more than five people living in a house who are related by blood or marriage.

The definition would apparently apply to any area of the city zoned for single family residential.

It would obviously include boyfriends and girlfriends, students sharing a place with separate bedrooms, and naturally gay couples.

If true, the organization has gone to far, and has finally become a menace to the resident's of this city/

Didnt Adolph Hitler try the same crap quite a few years back, if you are not worthy,look out for the hidden gas chambers !!!!!!!!

Maybe SPAR figures if the City can define a "tasteful and appropriate" sign, it can take on an issue like this with aplomb!  :D

I cant wait to see how this shakes out!!!

what evidence? this is just way tooooooo crazy to think that someone could even, as a joke, think this could be done.

ok, am i the only one that thinks someone is cooking meth in the spar office if they think this stands a snowballs chance in haiti of being considered anything other than a sick joke.

1) Stephen, if you don't know for certain.....why does your 'headline' state it as fact?

2) I'm betting there's some misinterpretation. Perhaps not, but i'd bet there is.

3) Let's see the email. Simply don't include any info you deem sensative (email address, etc).

"if true"
Is there ANY evidence of this, or is this BS. C'mon people...

just b/c Fox News praises you doesn't mean that their reporting 'style' should be emulated..... =)

^that's hilarious fsu!

So, do you think the fact that three expensive cars pulled up in front of the two new houses we built on Liberty Street at about 12:30 today and seven well dressed people jumped out has anything to do with this?  These seven people, five men and two women I believe, introduced themselves to one of the renters of one of the houses who happened to be out on the front porch as being from SPAR.  One of these people asked the home’s resident if he lived there and  said that they just wanted to ask him some questions.  The resident told them thanks but no thanks and that they were not welcome on the property. They milled about a bit then left.

As we know that these houses are often talked about and one has been the subject of an e-mail or two, we are thinking that if this resident hadn’t been home, pictures would have been taken through the windows as that does seem to be how these people operate.  Not that it would have mattered much, this house is nothing but a rental and has been “inspected” by the city at SPAR Council’s request more than a few times. 

Of course, rather than roll up all governmental and all, they could have made a phone call.  We would be happy to talk to them.  But at least it now sounds like they are accepting the truth and renting out your house is indeed legal.  Of course, this does mean that they have to try to change the laws to get us.  Sad really.

PS, the e-mails Stephen is referring to are all public access and  readily available to all by either request or on line.  I have seen a few of these e-mails and they do indicate that this is the direction things seem to be going.   Stephen most likely has better info that I do.

If that is the email in question - this is nothing new.  Where does it say that they are going to change the definition of family, etc?

sorry stephen, i don't know what is funnier, them thinking that they have enough lead in their pants to pull something that crazy off or the visual i have from a "Men in Black" scene regarding the dark suit visitors driving expensive cars (please tell me they didn't have a dog named Frank with them).

"Topic of discussion" is a whole different animal than "passing legislation". Geesus, get a grip.
"we are thinking"   If your legal, why worry about it.
 You know, I don't give a rats ass about the kind of house that is next to me as long as they are decent neighbors. That's just me.
So far, this thread is crap, in my humble opinion.

I'm not a huge fan of these types of zoning codes - but they are VERY common. Liberal Progressive cities like Providence RI limit housing units to 3 non-family members. This is 5.

Stephen is using grossly misleading language in his post. He's implying that 2 non-family members can't live in the same house. This kind of law would only prevent 5 non-family members from living in the same unit. Big difference. The only way this could prevent a gay couple from living together was if they were already living with their 3 other roommates in an un-divided unit.

Anyway, like I said, I think these types of zoning are stupid. But damn. Stephens characterization of the issue is so off-base it's probably libel.

Strider,

I looked at the house on Liberty Street that was for sale some months ago or so. Very nice house, with a twin (almost) right next store (your group home I guess).

I knew something was funny next door, that would explain it.

Stephen,

no reason to manufacture contraversy.

misinterpretation, as i suspected.

No, I'm being very serious. You're definitely pushing toward the boundaries of libel.

Your first post characterizes an extremely common zoning practice as something it isn't. Implies that it will do things that it won't. And makes some pretty overt statements about SPARs intent and how they need to be stopped.

Honestly, I kind of assumed that Jacksonville ALREADY had zoning laws which prevented more than X number of non-relatives from living in the same unit together. I can't overemphasize how common that type of zoning is. It's really popular in college towns, for obvious reasons.

I tell you a bunch of 16 year old girls

Most of my neighbors are garbage tenants of Saoud and SPAR hasn't come around asking to see their lineage certificates yet, I'll get worried when there's actually something to be worried about.

Chances of this "ordinance" passing, NIL.

Quote from: stephendare on October 12, 2009, 10:25:06 PM
The ordinance as proposed will have serious laws of unintended consequences.

Stephen, does this refer to SPAR or the bus shelter ordinance?   We do agree, unintended consequences can be bad!:D

much ado about nothing.

Five unrelated individuals is not a Gay couple, Unmarried couple or college roommate witch hunt.  Five unrelated individuals(I am no expert) doesn't seem like it would fit single family zoning.

Stephen -- where does it say that a family is a group of up to five related individuals?  They can't limit the number of family members to five, certainly.  In the email you scanned it refers to non-family members.

QuoteTuesday, October 02, 2007 Jacksonville, Fla.   

Jacksonville City Council President Daniel Davis and Council Member Glorious Johnson today announced that the public will now be able to view the incoming email received by the City Council as a body.  Additionally, the incoming email boxes for both Council President Davis and Council Member Johnson will be available for viewing individually.  The access provided will be "view only" for the incoming email received during the previous two week period.

Incoming email for City Council is available online at http://webmail.coj.net/public (http://webmail.coj.net/public).

Username: citycpublic
password: public

Quote from: stephendare on October 12, 2009, 09:15:11 PM
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/678994492_ukaws-O.jpg)

the emails have to be scanned guys.

its not such a quick process, thanks!

This is apparently from spar speaks.  (omg. really? SPAR Speaks?)

The paragraph at the bottom is one of the mentions of this ordinance.

Stephen thanks for clarifying the ordinance. I was using the last line of this email as my reference.

Stephen,

it's been established that this is not unusual in other cities, espeically college towns.

it's understandable that you weren't aware of it's widespread use, but now that you are.......why the outrage?

Well if it's not established yet with you, let me help...

- Tallahassee:

Number of Unrelated People Cohabiting in a Single Family District

The Tallahassee Code of Ordinances restricts the number of unrelated people living in a residence to no more than three unless the address is specifically grandfathered by the City to allow more than three unrelated occupants. This requirement applies to zoning areas designated as single family. When you plan to share housing with roommates, you are required to either restrict the number of occupants to three or seek appropriate housing in a multi-family district.

Suspected violations should be reported to the Growth Management Department at 850/891- 7050.

http://www.tshc.fsu.edu/par/documents/COT%20FLYER-%20ordinances.pdf

- Chicago:

Along a tree-shaded street in Northbrook with manicured lawns, a single-story brick home has become the center of controversy.

The six people who have lived there for nearly a year are quiet, even reclusive, and do a fine job maintaining their rented house and yard, neighbors said.

But those same neighbors as well as village officials suspect that the men and women renting the home in the 4000 block of Michelline Lane are not all related to each other, which violates an ordinance prohibiting more than three unrelated people from living together under the same roof.

"They're not disruptive, as far as being loud," said neighbor Craig Heisner. "It's just the unnerving aspect of having people living in what we believe is a violation of code. It's about safety first and foremost. It's about adhering to the village code.

"You can't undermine the integrity of a neighborhood."

Municipal planners said such ordinances are getting closer scrutiny in communities across the Chicago suburbs and elsewhere in the country. Often enacted decades ago, they were designed to keep residential neighborhoods geared more toward families -- and to keep out such things as boarding houses.

As the village's lawsuit against the owner of the house heads back to court Friday, it focuses squarely on the changing definition of the word "family."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northnorthwest/chi-northbrook-house-09-oct09,0,1432894.story

- Orlando:

Presiding over the hearing was a quorum of five code enforcement officials who stared blankly ahead, avoiding direct eye contact with the audience. Edgewood police officer Ron Beardslee stood at the front podium with his back to the crowd, nervously rifling though a stack of complaints and city ordinances, the legal framework for evicting the band.

The hearing was the result of a summons from the city of Edgewood. Code enforcement officers notified the band's landlord, April Castellano, that her six tenants had 10 days to get out. Castellano was looking at a $250-a-day fine if she didn't comply.

The musicians didn't play their music too loud, host wild parties or trash the house. Their transgression is that they are not a family, as defined by the city of Edgewood.

Sections 26-51 and 26-40 of the Edgewood city code state that no more than three persons can occupy a single-family residence unless they are related by blood, marriage or adoption. Orlando and Winter Park have similar codes. The laws are meant to prevent people from establishing boarding houses in the middle of neighborhoods zoned for R-1 single-family residences. No one goes door-to-door monitoring unrelated tenants.

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=3559

Does it need more establishing, Stephen?

This is obviously not unusual. While you may not agree with the concept, it is wide spread.

No, i didn't miss it.

I was just showing you how this is not unsual......at all.

Laws are not perfect, most have unintended consequences. Just gotta do the best you can.

QuoteLaws are not perfect, most have unintended consequences

Wow! Great point... There seem to be innumerable laws and proposed laws this applies to...

Stephen,

Sweet. Hopefully the 2 organizations will focus on different things, to get more done.

The more the merrier. As long as they don't work against eachother (which i seriously doubt) this can be nothing but good!

I'm curious though, what SPAR supported community events do they take part in that drive people apart?

The bazaar? The home tours? the National Night outs? Neighborhood cleanups? ummm......Dog Days in the Park? First Fridays? I can't think of any that are devisive.

 :D :D

QuoteLike the Crips with more anti oxidants.

:D :D

I would like to see names. This doesn't sound like any recent board.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 12:24:28 PM

QuoteMunicipal planners said such ordinances are getting closer scrutiny in communities across the Chicago suburbs and elsewhere in the country. Often enacted decades ago, they were designed to keep residential neighborhoods geared more toward families -- and to keep out such things as boarding houses.

As the village's lawsuit against the owner of the house heads back to court Friday, it focuses squarely on the changing definition of the word "family."

Did you miss this part of your examples, FSU.

Our country has changed alot since then. A hella lot.

I for one, don't ever want to go back to those times.

And Im definitely sick of the ever expanding list that the 290 people of SPAR no longer want in the neighborhood.

The hypocrisy is whats killing me.

When SPAR board members (and you know who you are) were taking advantage of the little old women who didnt realize their homes were suddenly worth more than 11 thousand dollars, and one of the board members took a house for 1,100 dollars from a young boy whose grandmother had just died,  no one in the SPAR community was worried about 'making profit off of the poor'.

ugh.

this whole subject is just unseemly.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 13, 2009, 12:57:07 PM
Stephen,

Sweet. Hopefully the 2 organizations will focus on different things, to get more done.

The more the merrier. As long as they don't work against eachother (which i seriously doubt) this can be nothing but good!

I'm curious though, what SPAR supported community events do they take part in that drive people apart?

The bazaar? The home tours? the National Night outs? Neighborhood cleanups? ummm......Dog Days in the Park? First Fridays? I can't think of any that are devisive.

fyi, home tours and dog days are not SPAR activities.  the home tours are woman's club (not a spar organization but totally separate entity) and dog days is SACARC which actually falls under the Woman's Club not SPAR

Oh I know, i just said that SPAR "supports" them.

So what's the deal with this? I just saw this thread. Am I going to have to kick my roomates out? or what?

Quote from: fsujax on October 13, 2009, 01:55:23 PM
So what's the deal with this? I just saw this thread. Am I going to have to kick my roomates out? or what?

As long as they aren't gay, unmarried couples, foster children, or college roommates you should be fine. That's my interpretation of the code according to what Mr. Tin Foil Cap has said.

But in all seriousness you should be fine. Unless of course you have more than 5 roommates.

Dang, that would stink!

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 02:26:32 PM
Here is another email between SPAR and Zoning.

The original email from SPAR is at the bottom, and the response is at the top.

The current zoning provides for people unrelated to each other up to five.  What SPAR wants to change is this definition.  They are suggesting 3.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/679789164_hACsV-O.jpg)

Where do you get that SPAR wants to change the definition to 3? I didn't see that referenced at all in that letter. Sounds like SPAR just wants an enforcement of the zoning overlay.

Still nothing about the number 3.

So where is the definitive evidence that SPAR is wanting a number of allowed people in a single family dwelling unit to be revised to be less than the current allowed number of 5.

Prisoner's of Christ have a similar system, they are on Boulevard, the big difference is they place pedophiles there fresh from jail.  No one seems to care about that. 

SPAR is disappointed at not being able to enforce the zoning overlay, not the defined number per family. Still yet to see anything regarding the magical number 3.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:15:56 PM
there is no 'magical' three Jth.  There is a suggested three.

Tell me, did SPAR tell you about their plans?  Or have you been kept completely in the dark about this attempt to change the laws, just like everyone else in the city?

And incidentally, which word of Springfield Preservation And Restoration is it that makes them into the body that 'enforces' the overlay?  Last time I checked, that was still the City who did that.

Ok Steven its not a "magical" 3, its a "suggested" 3. Still yet to see any documentation of this "suggested" 3.

Where do you get that there is an attempt to change the laws? The Planning and Development Department writes the zoning overlays which are then passed through City Council. Its not as if they have to pass some sort of public referendum as it sounds like you assume. If there were to be any change it would have to occur through the proper public channels that the city has in place. So despite your unfounded fears, nothing would be able to change behind closed doors. That is if there is any desire to have anything change anyways. Which you have done nothing to prove.

How is SPAR trying to enforce the overlay themselves? They simply want the city to enforce the codes that are put forth in the Springfield Overlay.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:25:51 PM
notice anything different about the RAP credo?

QuoteRiverside Avondale Preservation Inc. (RAP) is a private, non-profit membership organization whose mission is to enhance and preserve the architecture, history, cultural heritage and economic viability of the historic neighborhoods of Riverside and Avondale. RAP encourages community participation, promotes preservation education, and sponsors events that highlight the history, architecture and cultural vibrancy of the district.

QuoteHistoric Preservation:

What’s in it for me? Why should we preserve our city’s historical resources?

Old Homes are built better. * Old neighborhoods are convenient. * Old Homes are Green. * Old Homes hold their value. * Saving Old Homes is good business.

Quote
Resources

Historic preservation is about protecting the details that mark a structure as a unique reflection of its setting, style and period of construction. So how can you learn to recognize the details that make your own home special? The first and most important step is to open your eyes. In Walk Through, a terrific long-distance learning program created by the National Park Service, you’ll discover how to identify the visual characteristics, both interior and exterior, that make historical structures so distinctive; it is the careless replacement or alteration of such features that contributes to the loss of historical fabric in our districts.

Then, feel free to browse through the many articles and resources we’ve gathered here to guide you in your own maintenance and restoration efforts. Even better, why not send us an email with your own favorite books and web links and we’ll add them to our list!

QuoteSupport Your Local Merchants

Our district has some terrific historic commercial corridors. Why not get out and support them, especially since your local merchants make it so easy to have fun while you do it? Head on over to Funky Five Points for a great urban experience. The shops and restaurants there host the First Friday block party every month, with stores open late, wine tastings, art exhibitions and live music.

Or join your neighbors at the historic Shoppes of Avondale every third Thursday evening for music, dining, art and shopping. The Park & King area, grounded by the historic Whiteway Corner, showcases a growing dining scene. The Stockton area shops include a terrific tapas restaurant and an array of neighborhood services. So . . . what are your waiting for?

QuoteHistory of RAP

    “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” â€" Margaret Mead

In the 1970s, a handful of residents watched with dismay as unique historical structures were left in disrepair or demolished before their eyes. These concerned citizens, led by Dr. Wayne Wood, decided to take action and formed Riverside Avondale Preservation in 1974 with the aim of preserving the unique scenic, cultural and historical atmosphere of the neighborhood.

In that first year the organization hired an Executive Director, published the first newspaper, and developed and coordinated member events like the Arts Festival, the Home Tour, a Fourth of July Picnic and a Haunted House on Halloween. The group also began to identify and organize opposition to activities that threatened the area’s well being, such as large-scale developments, proposed bridges and roadways that might divide the district, and the possible loss of a neighborhood school and library.

In 1979, the nomination of the Riverside area (Old Riverside, Riverside Annex and New Riverside) to the National Register of Historic Places was made a top priority. Volunteers began making records for every home in the district that was over 50 years old; according to preservation guidelines, such buildings are deemed “a contributing structure.”

In 1985, after years of survey and research, Riverside and Riverside Annex became the first Jacksonville neighborhoods to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. This addition to the National Register helped to protect historical properties and bring attention to the significant and varied architecture of our area.

An architectural and historical survey of Avondale was initiated in 1985 and by 1989 Avondale, too, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That same year, the long-awaited preservation ordinance was introduced in City Council and the city included a state-required “historical preservation concern” as an “element” of the city’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan.

In 1990, Ordinance 90-706-486 passed through City Council. This Historic Preservation Ordinance, which established the seven-member Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission, brought RAP closer to what it had been working for since 1974 by protecting landmark sites and historic districts.

That same year, the building that served as RAP’s headquarters was itself placed in jeopardy. RAP had leased the building located at 2624 Riverside Avenue from a local family for twelve years when the family decided to sell the property to St. Vincent’s Medical Center. RAP not only had to find a new home, but also had to save the old one, plus two others still on the property that were in danger of demolition. The old RAP house was saved and moved to a residential area. Soon thereafter, a woman from Ohio heard about RAP’s need for a new headquarters and donated the Buckland House at 2623 Herschel Street to RAP!

In an effort to speed up restoration efforts in the most neglected part of the neighborhood and to provide an opportunity for home ownership, RAP formed a separate organization called Riverside Avondale Development Organization (RADO) in 1998. The goal was to purchase homes, restore them and sell them to low and moderate-income purchasers, which continues to be RADO’s mission today.

Riverside Avondale Preservation is now one of the South’s largest neighborhood preservation groups, guarding and guiding the ever-evolving mix of history, architecture, culture, and commerce in the Riverside Avondale area. The organization continues to focus on balancing progress and preservation, provides services and educational opportunities to members and property owners, and works to address quality of life concerns for our neighborhood.

If you think RAP wouldn't be highly opposed to new rooming and boarding houses in their neighborhood than I have some real estate to sell you in Nocatee.

If you also think RAP wasn't heavily involved in the writing and enforcement of the Riverside Avondale Overlay than come see me about buying some Madoff stock.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:30:53 PM
that is unless they dont like what the codes say, then they want to change them.

In secret.

QuoteDated: 10-06-09

Thank you Bridgette,

Did you get my voice mail last week relating to the rooming house report?

Claude Moulton is anxious to have some report for the Board meeting on Monday. Joe Markusic has set up a "clearinghouse Number" that anyone can call, and he will place them somewhere in Springfield.

It is quite obvious to us in the district that this neighborhood holds the key to a lot of money for him, and he is not about to give up.

He is still bragging that if SPAR or the City could have stopped him. they would have already done so.

We find it astounding that someone with so little civic conscience can be allowed to get away with so much.

If it is actually necessary to write some legislation, we would like that done sooner rather than later. In the meantime we need to know how much of what he says is true; can he legally do what he is doing, or is part of it still enforcement?

Thanks again for your help on this.

Its a vengeance campaign.  A conflict of personalities and their heels are dug in, and they do not care what side effects their demands will have on the rest of the city if they get their way.

Thats what it seems to be, and if that is true, they need to cash out and go home.

Now they are trying to change the zoning codes in secret? Maybe you should call Sean Kelly about that, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it.

Stephen, correct me if I am wrong, but to summarize this...

The current overlay law only allows five unrelated individuals to occupy housing that is coded for a single family. SPAR does not not believe this is being enforced and has asked that something be done to enforce this, and also recommends that new legislation should be created to remedy the issue better.

In the first scanned email you included, the author of that email has said that SPAR does not believe 4 or 5 unrelated people should be considered a family, therefore bringing you to the conclusion they want the new legislation set at 3 people.

Its the constant harrassment of two fine people, strider and sheclown, that pisses me off.  There are perhaps some other houses with absent landlords that should be examined further. But leave strider alone!  Why is it that the war on strider is at the top of their list?

(yawn).

Stephen, Sigma, etc.....

Residents don't want boarding / rehab houses in thier 'hood for a variety of reason that seem to boggle your mind. Sorry you don't understand.

As someone said earlier, if you think RAP would be ok with this in thier 'hood you are sadly mistaken. They'd fight like hell to stop new boarding/rehab houses from opening.

By all accounts, Joe/Strider/Bargin is exploiting a loophole in the law and SPAR is trying to close that loophole. Other rehab/boarding houses are now trying to do what Joe is doing. (ie, ever heard the expression that it's not ok for you to throw your trash on the ground, b/c what if everyone did it?)

Doesn't help that he makes money off of these houses and does not live here. That thorws his credibility out the window when it comes to this specific issue.

However, this is not a unique situation to Springfield, as I've chronicled earlier in this post. It's in most major cities, and some not so major.

And......a suggestion......perhaps you should care more about the opinions of home owners in Springfield, and not those just passing through.

Homeowners count more than temporary residents who may pack up and leave next week, next month, next year - when it comes to shaping the neighborhood agenda.

So there =P

It's funny, strider didn't exploit anything until SPAR started this vendetta against him.  Now he's exploiting loopholes? He's simply defending his legal rights from a hypocritical group of do-gooders.  He's been around longer than any of these new 'saviors' in the community.  His name was never before brought up as one of the slum lords in the area.  But you folks tend to paint with a wide brush..I get that.

I will continue to support SPAR with preservation and revitalization efforts.  But this is off the charts IMHO.  Leave the guy alone.

That's why it's called a loophole, Sigma. It's a legal way of avoding the intent of the law. Kinda like companies who move thier 'home office' offshore to avoid paying taxes. A loophole.

Now you're exaggerating/lying. Remind me who has said that he's a 'slumlord'? By all accounts he does a fine job with his physical properties, we just don't want more & more people in rehab from this or that to move in. Not from him or any of the various other people/organizations that may not be quite as stand up as Strider / Bargin is. Actaully, rehab isn't the main problem. More like ransdom people with major issues living 5 to a house throughout the nieghborhood. Not cool. Kinda opens the flood gates, ya know.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:40:03 PM
If its an open process, jth.  Why does only Sean Kelly seem to know about it?

If it is your contention that its not happening, then you are in the position of Calling Louise DeSpain a liar.

Louise is a complex and fascinating woman, and no matter how we might have differing opinions, I have never found her purposefully untruthful and as far as I know, she most certainly is not a liar.

The point about you calling Sean Kelly about this is that he would laugh at your little conspiracy theory. The notion that the director of a non-profit and a city councilman would be able to "secretly" amend something that passed through the city zoning board and city council is a little out there. In fact it couldn't even happen. If there were to be some new legislation or an amendment to the old legislation it would have to pass through the zoning board and then city council. The public would be allowed to voice their opinion at both meetings, so its not as if this is some cloack and dagger operation as you imply. I attended the Riverside Zoning Overlay hearing at the Zoning Board which was in open hearing. Where guess who spoke? Your model organiztion RAP. The director spoke about how their organization had been heavily involved in the drafting of the document. So its not as if SPAR is overstepping its bounds or acting unethical as you say by being involved in the overlay process.

If you have those 30 odd emails, please post one where someone from SPAR overtly says they would like the definition of family to be changed from 5 to 3. Everything else you have posted simply points to SPAR being concerned with the city's inability to enforce the overlay.

Like I said call Sean Kelly about your cloak and dagger theory on the matter, he's a public servant and its not very hard to find his contact info.

No Loophole. No exaggerating, no lying.  He's been lumped in with the Redwines, Moats, Davidsons, Stockwells as if he runs the same type of operation.  He doesn't.

However, I do get your point and would resist the true slumlords moving in the neighborhood.

I will restate

QuoteIts the constant harrassment of two fine people, strider and sheclown, that pisses me off.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:07:07 PM
Well thats true Cindi.  Do you think that the all people should be screened for their background of drugs, alcohol, divorce, credit, or sexual past before they can buy a house in Springfield?  because a fair number of people with those issues are you other next door neighbors as well. 

SPAR isnt on a crusade against the same kind of people as long as they have good credit.

Does anyone care that people are selling houses to criminals?

Here is a blurb where spar is very disappointed at the current laws, as interpreted by the General Counsel's office.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/679825641_xqN97-O.jpg)

The question is "where does this stop?"

Why is this organization defined by what it is against, and why cant it work for something?

As I said earlier, on an individual basis these people are lovely, wonderful human beings.  I don't know why they are so destructive the minute they walk through the front door of that building.

actually many property owners do run background checks on their tenants to include credit checks.  why would they want to rent to someone that historically has had “issues” in the past? as for the renting to baby rapers, no, i don’t think it is very neighborly (regardless of the neighborhood) to purposely rent to one.  jacksonville has approximately 1515 registered sex offenders in it’s 874 square miles (the estimate is 522 people per 1 baby raper) or about 2 per square mile.  however, in our 1 square mile of springfield we have approximately 115 - or if you use a population of 2000 that’s about 1 baby raper per 17 people.  these people are renting from someone, people that don’t care about the people that they are placing in harms way.  people that just want to make a quick, easy buck. 
some boarding/rooming/recovery/insert whatever you want to call it houses actually check out their tenants, it’s the ones that don’t, and have filled their places with anything with a pulse that are problematic.  for instance, the one at the corner of 7th and pearl - has a known offender living in it that has actually been re-arrested not too long ago, as well as someone that “stays” there that deals/buys drugs daily on the corner of 7th and perry (guess he’s recovering from sobriety not the other way around) and in our alleys.  if they are going for the picture of what we don’t want - they are it. so, do i think that a group like that living together is a good idea - no.

Quote from: stephendare on October 13, 2009, 03:39:03 PM
really jth?

So you think that the neighborhood that St. Vincents is in has no recovery homes in it?

And do you think that they have ever tried to limit the number of people who are allowed to reside in a house?

Because if you do, then there is a place on the SPAR board for you.

Dr. Wayne Wood, one of the finest and most genteel men that it has ever been this city's honor to count among its citizens, has been a driving force for RAP since its inception.

His attention has been on the positive restoration of the architecture since the very beginning, and he personally fought the kind of rapscallion developer driven mentality that has guided spar, when that mentality reared its head in Riverside.

He is a gentleman, a scholar, and a humanitarian, we could all benefit by another hundred Wayne Woods.

I certainly hope that you can refrain from smirching the public reputation of this fine man.

What are they recovery homes for heart attack patients? My parents have lived in Avondale for over 15 years and I've never once heard of a recovery home, boarding home or anything similar for that matter. Not saying they definitively don't exist, just that I'd love to see some proof. You can't just say something and then have it magically come true.

Yea I absolutely think RAP either has or would try to limit boarding houses, rooming houses, etc from coming into their area. As I said in my other post, RAP was heavily involved in the writing of the Riverside Avondale zoning overlay. So I would imagine they made sure there was plenty of language in it that protected their neighborhood from threatening interests.

So I "smirched" the public reputation of a guy that is involved in RAP because I mentioned that RAP would also fight from having boarding houses? So then in turn aren't you doing the same to everyone involved with SPAR with the nastiness you've spewed in this thread? Thats a bit of hypocrisy don't you think?

Cindi, you have done your homework and make some good points.  Focusing on those houses/apt buildings where you know of shady activity is where the efforts should be. 

I've been trying to avoid posting, but....

The definition of a "family" as far as the current code goes:

Family means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit; provided, that, unless all members are related by law, blood, adoption or marriage, no family shall contain over five persons.

Then, to repeat the bit from August 7th, 2009 "SPAR Speaks", which, by the way, was only distributed to a select few, or at the very least, some members (like me) were not included.

QuoteThe overlay does not allow four or five unrelated individuals to move into a house that is single family home, that does not constitute a family.

First and foremost, the overlay does not address the definition of family in any way. It is done by the general code as defined above. Which means that a family is currently defined as including up to five unrelated adults. So, not only can we see that SPAR Council out and out lied about what the overlay says, they do not consider more than three (3) unrelated adults to be a family. Stephen is right in his assessment of what SPAR Council is going to try to do.  The secret part is that they  do not let anyone else know what they want to do until they do it.  Particularly the likes of me.  :o

What also can be seen is that there is no loophole.  To be a loophole, it has to be "grey".  This is simply black and white.  Rentals to legal families are legal all over Jacksonville, even in Historic Springfield, apparently much to the chagrin of SPAR Council.

I may not currently live in Springfield, but then again, neither does SPAR Council’s favorite son anymore.  At least I am in good company.  Is Mack’s name now going to be dragged through the mud as much as mine is? It is ludicrous to think that even though I only have business and home investments in Springfield that I do not care what happens to Springfield.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 13, 2009, 04:42:15 PM

Residents don't want boarding / rehab houses in thier 'hood for a variety of reason that seem to boggle your mind. Sorry you don't understand.

Oh we understand quite well.  You don't get to make that decision.  That is something that you don't seem to understand.

Maybe people like myself and my friends , who are in recovery and work in the area, and you would be amazed at some of the employers and the skills with who we work and provide for are just not welcome here . Maybe I will move back to Ortega ,where the people are nice and leave Springfield to the crack dealers nobody seems to be able to control.

well, since Strider has shown that this loophole can work, don't worry the crack addict rehab houses will be soon to follow.....

this is the point. If Striders were the only one's, this wouldn't be an issue. but hey aren't and various people/organizations are looking to do open more as we speak.....

Quote from: fsu813 on October 13, 2009, 06:53:31 PM
well, since Strider has shownt hat this lopphole can work, don't worry the crack addict rehab houses will be soon to follow.....

this is the point. If Striders were the only one's, this wouldn't be an issue. but hey aren't and various people/organizations are looking to do open more as we speak.....

And if we were just left alone, we would have minded our own business and this would not have been broadcast all over.  Joe and I just want to do what we do, have some peace and serenity, and maybe just help someone along the way.  We are not the ones who keep bringing this up. 

If watching our battle has inspired others to attempt to move into Springfield, well...that is not our fault.  We are going to fight for our rights and the rights of the men whom God has put in our care regardless of the consequences.  And the consequences could be steep, I'm telling you this, right now.  You won't like the door that we will open IF we continue to be provoked. 

FSU813, how about telling us about all of these other "illegal" houses that are opening up all over and following "my lead"?  We know that you and others do not like Ju'Coby Pitman's house on Boulevard, that is actually perfectly legal and acceptable per the overlay. What other ones are there?  Any for sure, or are you just buying the company line?  Many places have been called "special uses" by you and others, including the SPAR Council executive board, but, by actual definition, few are. You keep trying to defend these actions, yet you have yet to even attempt to explain why they lied about it.  Care to try?  You are not alright about us using this imagined "loop hole" as you keep trying to call it, but the lies from SPAR Council are perfectly acceptable?

Perhaps this "we must do this to save the neighborhood" thing might work for you if it wasn't my name used in the vast majority of the e-mails. If it wasn't our properties that SPAR Council's Executive Board constantly lies about. If I didn't know them as well as I do. If they were capable of following their own laws themselves.

I'm not in a position to talk about other houses. I know a few important details, but not enough to speak in-depth about them. And I doubt those that are trying to close this loop hole would want it the details broadcast.

Also, i've never used the term "special uses". I have no idea what that means.

I have no previous knowledge of "lies", etc. I'm a relatively new resident so the history doesn't mean a whole lot to me, honestly. I just know that right now, at this moment, I support the general effort to stop new boarding/rehab houses from opening and I support closing whatever loop holes there may be to circumvent existing laws that are meant to stop this.

As a resident & property owner this sounds good to me. I have nothing against anyone in the neighborhood personally, and intend on keeping it that way.

Quote from: strider on October 13, 2009, 07:07:58 PM
FSU813, how about telling us about all of these other "illegal" houses that are opening up all over and following "my lead"?  We know that you and others do not like Ju'Coby Pitman's house on Boulevard, that is actually perfectly legal and acceptable per the overlay. What other ones are there?  Any for sure, or are you just buying the company line?  Many places have been called "special uses" by you and others, including the SPAR Council executive board, but, by actual definition, few are. You keep trying to defend these actions, yet you have yet to even attempt to explain why they lied about it.  Care to try?  You are not alright about us using this imagined "loop hole" as you keep trying to call it, but the lies from SPAR Council are perfectly acceptable?

Perhaps this "we must do this to save the neighborhood" thing might work for you if it wasn't my name used in the vast majority of the e-mails. If it wasn't our properties that SPAR Council's Executive Board constantly lies about. If I didn't know them as well as I do. If they were capable of following their own laws themselves.

In regards to the  Ju'coby Pittman mention...if it was perfectly legal, it would have happened. oh well...

It didn't go through.............or just not yet?

Perhaps it was my email to Ms. Pittman that persuaded her (ha).

QuoteIn regards to the  Ju'coby Pittman mention...if it was perfectly legal, it would have happened. oh well...

QuoteIt didn't go through.............or just not yet?

Perhaps it was my email to Ms. Pittman that persuaded her (ha).

ahh...try it just hasn't opened yet....

And FSU813, go re-read some of your posts on the various forums....

and it is nice to know that you support lies and innuendo in favor of truth and justice....

Go Gators! lol

strider,

please elaborate on what "lies" i support.

I'm quite interested.....

Lets see if we have some common ground here. Do we all feel that for the unrelated people the limit of no more than 5 is a good number and no more than 3 is too restrictive?

Maybe SPAR should ask the RESIDENTS of Springfield what the want? It seems easy enough. I know on my block I dont think anyone actively particiaptes in SPAR.

I think everyone in Springfield should get a shotgun with 3 rounds in it.  Then police should barricade the neighborhood from MLK down past 1st and residents can just go crazy.  I mean, that's what you guys want, right?  To shoot each other?  That's how it seems at least -- I thank God daily that I chose to move to a non-historic, non-neighborhood area of town with houses that are not in disrepair while still being old school. 

^ Why do you think that's even remotely the case?

fsujax,

Participating (ie, showing up for SPAR, Shadco, SAMBA, meetings) is the best way to let SPAR & other neighborhood organizations know what you are and are not concerned about.

If you don't participate, then don't complain.

Kinda like voting, if you don't bother to vote....don't complain about the outcome.

I am not complaining. Just would rather this be a resident issue, rather than everybody else getting involved saying what is best for Springfield. Trust me, I only want what is best for my neighborhood or else I wouldnt have invested everything I own into it.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 14, 2009, 08:11:11 AM
strider,

please elaborate on what "lies" i support.

I'm quite interested.....

Actually, I said Lies and innuendo.  I could go out and check other threads to prove it more, but frankly, i don't have the time.  Please go back and read your posts numbers 21,81,83,94 and 97.  They show your stance on this matter quite well and they also show that you support SPAR Council's actions and what they say fully. Now refer to my post number 89.  In it, I prove a bold faced lie on the part of SPAR Council, one that they put in writing and at the very least, sent to Sean Kelly of the city and Dr. Gaffney.  If you go and read the overlay and research the codes, you will see that I am very much right and they were very much lying.  You support them fully in this? Then you support them lying as well.

Now, back to that overlay, you say you never heard of or used the term "special uses"?  Well, either you have never read the overlay that you claim we are hurting and not following or you have read it and did not tell the truth.  Which is it?

FSU813 illustrates a huge problem.  Many here do not have the time nor inclination to do the research themselves so they must depend on SPAR Council to do it. When SPAR Council uses misinformation about things,  people like FSU813 get suckered in and believe it.  When SPAR Council sends out this information, based on lies and innuendo, of course some are going to latch onto it as gospel and believe it and therefore believe what we do and who we help are bad and bad for the community.  I am simply asking that these same people take a few minutes and find out the real facts; the real truth.  It isn't what SPAR Council tells you.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 14, 2009, 08:58:54 AM
fsujax,

Participating (ie, showing up for SPAR, Shadco, SAMBA, meetings) is the best way to let SPAR & other neighborhood organizations know what you are and are not concerned about.

If you don't participate, then don't complain.

Kinda like voting, if you don't bother to vote....don't complain about the outcome.

Tell that to Alex S. and Joe.

Strider,

ok.

21 - i have no idea how this 2 senetnce-fragment post supports lies & innuendo.

81 - is about the park system

83 - is a linked article about parks

94 - does pertain somewhat, regarding the new thrift store on Main Street. I say i can see both sides of the issue as to supporting it or not supporting it.

97 -  is about parks again.

Your post 89 - refers to the JSO and an exotic yellow sports car

Perhaps our signals are being crossed here?

Also,

agian you mistate. I said i've never used the term 'special uses', however i have "heard of it" and do know the general meaning, but no details.

You try and paint me as some one who is being duped by SPAR? This has nothing to do with twith SPAR. At all. From my opint of view. They do share my point of view on this particular issue though.

I personally have come up with my opinion that rehab/boarding houses in mass are not good for the neighborhood. Call me crazy. I didn't received talking points from SPAR, beleive it or not. I have never been "sent" any information about this issue either, as you state.

Furthermore, I know that other people/organizations are looking into taking advanatge of the same loophole in the intent of the law as you are. I don't blame you for it. If I was making money on a business that was trying to shut down or at least hindered i'd probably take advantage of every loop hole i could find. However, since this deals with neighborhoods, quality of life, & property values (pervieved or real) people are going to care and attempt to take action.

Like I said, I care not about the history b/t you and whoever. I have no idea who did what when how etc. I do know that I'm not going out on a limb to say that, generally, rehab/boarding houses aren't popular with most neighbors or myself for various reasons. An opinion that i've formed, shockingly apparently, by myself.

FSU813, the post numbers I was referring to were the post numbers within this thread, not your post number or my post numbers per the profile page.  Go back and try again. (some how, I suspect you knew that....)

Meanwhile:

Quote
Except that the request to change the zoning definition of a 'family' isnt a change to the so called 'overlay' that applies to springfield.

It would apply to the entire city, and half of riverside would have to get their asses out of their apartments.

The implications of this current vendetta on the part of SPAR Council can have far greater impact on Jacksonville as a whole than it will ever against us.

the whole thing is just ridiculous.  it will never happen. 

"The implications of this current vendetta on the part of SPAR Council can have far greater impact on Jacksonville as a whole than it will ever against us." - Strider

Yes, Strider. I know SPAR is tghe downfall of all that is good in Springfield and perhaps the entire city as well.

Stephen,

I cited 3 easy examples of how this is not unique to SPAR. It's a prevelant train of thought in hundreds, if not thousands of cities in the US.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 14, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
It's a prevelant train of thought in hundreds, if not thousands of cities in the US.

As our parents used to say:  "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge..."

i prefer the - it's like tube tops, just cause you can, doesn't mean you should thought

Stephen,

and......

i don't understand why people's reactions are to be startled, shocked, etc.

i mean, if you don't agree with SPAR and the countless numbers of other similar drives to address this issue across the nation, fine. I just don't know why you and others act as if this is unheard of or out of left field, persay.

Clearly it's not. You can add Jacksonville to the list of Chicago, orlando, Tallahassee, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not startled or shocked.   I just think we have plenty of laws already which aren't enforceable, and I don't think there's a way to legislate a solution to this issue.

Anyhoo, DNA research indicates that we're ALL related by blood, so there is no such thing as unrelated adults. 8)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

Quote from: hooplady on October 14, 2009, 03:27:58 PM
As our parents used to say:  "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge..."

I WOULD!
course I would have a parachute but Id still jump

which list do you think is longer.....

the one's that were sued and defeated or the ones that weren't?

(ha). ok.

This can be your next headline:

"Stephen Dare tries to pass law to ban like-minded property owners in Springfield from organizing!"

If this issue actually goes to any kind of legislation , consider the cost of an already financial strapped city budget trying to settle a petty issue like this . Fix a few potholes in Springfield and communicate with your neighbors on a civil level and try to make the hood a unit,this is more like civil war. I am in recovery and my neighbors like and respect me , even the upstanding ones and the sketchy ones, DIVERSITY.

To help remove some of the "if":

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/4015311718_b20e4a60e0_b.jpg)

so what will they change the minimum number to? 3, 4 or 5?

^ That's the main point, if it stays at 5 and they are going to enforce it better, awesome.  Even college heavy towns hold max non family household to around 4 I think.  Look at Gainesville, most units over there hold max roommates to 4.  And if its as easy as it seems to get access to these emails you would think we'd see something with a definitive number.

If it is less than 5, I think it's wrong.  Five seems pretty darn reasonable to me though.

As of right now, there's a ton of fear mongering it seems.  I've not seen anything where unmarried or gay couples should worry at all in any of these "damning" emails, but there's certainly been a few posts in this thread putting the fear into them that they should be.

Actually that would mean 3 blood relatives, and 1 by legal adoption and a roommate correct? Not 5 un-related individuals.

The points of this that bother me:

What if someone is to rent a home in Springfield that is 3/3 and they have 3 couples living in it quietly?
If Florida won't legalize gay marriage or civil unions -- any gay couples will not be recognised as a family, then that verges on predjudism in itself.

I work in realty/property management and we have private owners who are reluctant to rent to college students/roommates. Now, I mostly work intercoastal/beaches area, but we are allowed to say 'it is a single family dwelling, therefore the owner would prefer a single family living in it.' If the owners are allowed to make that decision, then why not just leave it at that?

Quote from: soviette on October 16, 2009, 03:34:00 PM
If the owners are allowed to make that decision, then why not just leave it at that?

It seems to me that SPAR is having issue with owners of homes that would like to pack as many people as possible into a home of they could and because of this is trying to pass legislation that would make those people suffer, but in turn would also make others not looking to make a profit, suffer.

Okay, this legislation does not need to address "packing them in" as that is addressed by the 5 or fewer.  There are laws on the books regarding this.

This is about prejudice.  Period.  Get the poor out of the neighborhood...

After all, the rich don't need roommates, do they?

so what areas would this include?

So, then will this new legislation be for only houses that are being rented out or for all single family residences?

Quote from: sheclown on October 16, 2009, 03:54:33 PM
Okay, this legislation does not need to address "packing them in" as that is addressed by the 5 or fewer.  There are laws on the books regarding this.

This is about prejudice.  Period.  Get the poor out of the neighborhood...

After all, the rich don't need roommates, do they?

So, this wouldn't affect a rich gay couple and their foster kids? Only the poor?

Congratulations, this thread has now decended to the level of the T/U's comments section. Say it ain't so  :- :'(

^This apparent proposed legislation has a lot of hype to live up to

Quote from: 02roadking on October 16, 2009, 04:30:47 PM
Congratulations, this thread has now decended to the level of the T/U's comments section. Say it ain't so  :- :'(

If it were the T/U comments section this thread would have more "It's your fault for voting for Obama/Pelosi" comments.

Still, I think it's all conjecture at this point. But worth taking into consideration. If such laws are passed they could have intense ramifications on living situations in the city. But we know from experiance most local legislation that's drafted for a special purpose is usually only selectively enforced anyways. So I don't think it's any sort of "chicken little, sky is fallin'" scenario right yet.

Quote from: stephendare on October 16, 2009, 04:41:06 PM
I dont think so road king.  These are all metrojacksonville styley comments.  No racism, outright ignorance or liberal/neocon screaming.

A couple of them are even quite clever.

Allright, maybe not that bad.
 I'll wait till I see the actual legislation before I comment further.

So I want to point out the obvious. According to what I've read only married couple or family by blood counts as family.

So where do adopted children fall into that?

As it is currently stated, family is based on law, blood, marriage or adoption. So it pretty clear that adopted child counts as a family member.

Just curious- is there no limit on the number of individuals living in a home that is zoned "Single Family" that you think would be reasonable? Why zone at all if I could move 45 of my closest friends into a house with me?

As it is currently stated by law, you could move 45 of your closest relatives into your home, but not your friends.  Only four friends could move in.

I realize that- the question was- is there no reasonable number that should be set on the number of non family members in a single family home? Or is any limit prejudice and targeted at the poor?

Quote from: iluvolives on October 16, 2009, 07:59:21 PM
I realize that- the question was- is there no reasonable number that should be set on the number of non family members in a single family home? Or is any limit prejudice and targeted at the poor?

I think that the law, as it now stands at five, is totally acceptable.

Then what happens to StephenDare's three gay couples living in a victorian?

One person is currently living there illegally.  

Exactly, that is why the title of this post and the 11 pages of discussion attacking SPAR for a regulation that already exists seems irrelevant. If someone has issue with the current regulations they should address it with the City. The title of this post misleads people to believe that these regulations are not currently in place.

Stephen is right.  This is problematic on so many levels.  Legal if related, illegal if not related, problem one.  The magic number is a problem, who is enforcing this?  What training will they have?  Who can do this?  Is it "complaint driven" enforcement?  If so, what is to prevent misuse?  What constitutes "living" there?  Is a one-night stand a problem?  A visitor for a week?  A month?  Six months?

The whole historic district now sounds like some tragic nazi homeowner or condo association. My aunt from Miami had to do a background check to stay 3 weeks in my apartment. lol...

This whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws. I live next to a duplex that has three bedrooms to a unit. We had 6, 20 somethings living there for years, 3 to a unit. These were kids but they managed to pay their rent and live comfortably 1 to a room. They had parties and played their music but they also went to work everyday or night and were good neighbors. I didn't care if they had friends spend the night because it was a temporary thing and there were never issues that come with overcrowding. When they moved out due to the landlord not making needed repairs a new group moved in. This group consisted of friends and family in both units and was a nightmare! They kept pitbulls in cages on the balcony and ran a babysitting operation. One man went to work and every other adult sat around all day and night drinking, cussing, smoking pot, yelling, taunting dogs and neglecting children. One middle school age boy routinely did not attend school and the dogs were left without food and water all day in cages in the heat only to be let out to run the block at 9 pm. ALL the neighbors called animal control and child services which would lead to nothing but these neighbors harrassing us. Several of the neighbors contacted the owner but nothing changed. I documented everything and as a last recourse I sent the owner documentation of events and let him know that this was his final warning of the danger these tenents and their dogs posed to us and that we would take legal action against him if we were harmed. This did the trick and he finally evicted them. He has not been able to rent the property since due the the trashing these folks did to the place. My point is, no one is going to complain about nice quiet neighbors who keep their property up no matter who they are. It is the bad apple tenents or owners that cause the problem and becuse they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

Quote from: Springfield Girl on October 17, 2009, 09:10:35 AM
This whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws. I live next to a duplex that has three bedrooms to a unit. We had 6, 20 somethings living there for years, 3 to a unit. These were kids but they managed to pay their rent and live comfortably 1 to a room. They had parties and played their music but they also went to work everyday or night and were good neighbors. I didn't care if they had friends spend the night because it was a temporary thing and there were never issues that come with overcrowding. When they moved out due to the landlord not making needed repairs a new group moved in. This group consisted of friends and family in both units and was a nightmare! They kept pitbulls in cages on the balcony and ran a babysitting operation. One man went to work and every other adult sat around all day and night drinking, cussing, smoking pot, yelling, taunting dogs and neglecting children. One middle school age boy routinely did not attend school and the dogs were left without food and water all day in cages in the heat only to be let out to run the block at 9 pm. ALL the neighbors called animal control and child services which would lead to nothing but these neighbors harrassing us. Several of the neighbors contacted the owner but nothing changed. I documented everything and as a last recourse I sent the owner documentation of events and let him know that this was his final warning of the danger these tenents and their dogs posed to us and that we would take legal action against him if we were harmed. This did the trick and he finally evicted them. He has not been able to rent the property since due the the trashing these folks did to the place. My point is, no one is going to complain about nice quiet neighbors who keep their property up no matter who they are. It is the bad apple tenents or owners that cause the problem and becuse they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

...have you ever lived in a city before, Springfield Girl?

Springfield Girl, the biggest problem with your argument is that changing these laws will not help those bad situations one bit. Whether the laws says five unrelated adults or just three (as I suspect the coming proposed ordinance will read, among other things…), you can and will still have bad renters that cause you problems.  This law is not the cure all for controlling if the next renters next to you will be great neighbors or the horrors of your worst nightmare.  And what will you try next when you find out that instead of just three unrelated people, a blood related family of eight moves in next to you and are a problem neighbor?  Try to get a law passed that says you can not be a family and live in a single family house if you have more than two kids? How long before you want to perform a background check and get a financial statement from anyone who wants to live in Springfield? Of course, even if you could do that, it would not guarantee you a good neighbor.

None of the above, I didn't say anything about changing the law. Just enforce laws already on the books that keep people behaving decently. As I stated above, the city departments that should have done something about our neighbors (code enforcement, animal care, child services) didn't enforce any of the many laws being broken and only my threat of legal action forced the owner into action. Yes, I have lived in cities much larger than Jacksonville and never have I dealt with such rude, irresponsible people. I lived in New Orleans for 20 years and never had a single thing stolen but I have been a victim of theft in every area of Jacksonville I have lived in. It seems like people here have such an entitlement attitude. Everyone owes them, whether it be government, charity or just an individual that happens to have more than they do. I don't know if it is the education level, contamination issues or what but people seem to have serious issues here. Some people are trying to make this an economic issue by saying that Springfield doesn't want poor people here. I don't care how much money you have and I don't think money has anything to do with sweeping your porch or picking up trash on your property. My attitude is, be responsible, take care of your sh*t, don't force your lifestyle down my throat and we'll get along fine.

Ok, Springfield Girl, I'm really confused.  From your first post, you say:

QuoteThis whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws.
And:
It is the bad apple tenants or owners that cause the problem and because they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

Which, partly due to what a few others have told me about conversations you've had with them, I took it as you are agreeing with the rest of your SPAR Council Board and are pursuing this proposed law change through Dr. Gaffney.

Now you say:

QuoteNone of the above, I didn't say anything about changing the law. Just enforce laws already on the books that keep people behaving decently.

So does that mean that you are not going to support the law that Dr. Gaffney is having Shannon Eller draft up on SPAR Councils request and so will not be going downtown to speak for it or are you saying that we are wrong and that there is no such law being drafted, even though we have the E-mails and verbal confirmation that it is indeed being drafted? 

I'm saying I don't know anything about any so called new legislation but do support laws and the intention of laws already on the books. I would have to be educated on any issue before I could support or oppose it. The city does a poor job of enforcing existing laws whether it be zoning, preservation or any other issue and that is a problem. I agree with what Dan has said in the past that just because someone can find a way around a law or use conflicting interpretations to further their business endeavors or personal mission does not mean they should. Joe, you love to bash and damn everyone (developers, SPAR, residents of Springfield)for their views that you do not support while belittling our views and concerns about your mission to bring recovering addicts en masse into the neighborhood we live in. You have a mission that you believe in but that does not make your mission, business or rights any more important than ours. We are homeowners that live here with our families, though you have less concern for our feelings than you do for recovering addicts that are paying your mortgages while just passing through the neighborhood. You do not care about our concerns but demand that we care about yours. It doesn't work that way and doesn't garner any support for your cause. I get that you FEEL you have been unfairly attacked by a FEW but how does going against the wishes of so many neighbors correct that. You have stated on several occasions that SPAR just cares about winning a perceived battle with you but I see it the other way. You will damn the whole neighborhood and spite us by forcing your mission and business down our throats because of some vendetta against SPAR. SPAR is not hurt by having multiple halfway houses/boarding houses/quasi halfwayhouses or detox centers in the neighborhood. The ones hurt are the families who chose to put down roots here and invest their money to rehab a home and bring this historic neighborhood back from the dregs and despair it had been reduced to. In the end if winning makes you feel good in spite of hurting the families and full time residents of Springfield you will only deserve our contempt.

How does having people in recovery hurt a neighborhood?  I really don't get that.  But it really doesn't matter.

Many of our men have lived in Springfield for decades.  If they are "passing through", they are not doing a very good job of it.  Again, it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is ...the Fair Housing Act makes is a violation of federal law to discriminate against people who are in recovery.  That means, no city, neighborhood, or state regulations can zone out a group of people, or even limit the number of disabled people in a neighborhood. 

Stephen, I do not have any obsession or entitlement regarding property values. I just want to be a decent neighbor, and get the same in return.

Sheclown, the problem, as has been stated many times before is the same as having too many renters of any kind in a neighborhood. Renters for the most part are just passing through. They have no vested interest in the success of a neighborhoood. When people choose to buy a home in any given neighborhood they care about how that house and neighborhood look cosmetically. They care about how others see their home and neighborhood. There is always the exception but most resident homeowners take pride in their property and want to be perceived well by their neighbors. When someone has no ties to the property, neighbors and neighborhood and are just passing through they don't have the above concerns. Everytime I read these posts I think we should just post pictures. Again, there are always exceptions but lets see what rental properties look like compared to owner occupied. My neighbors who own their houses all keep up their yards and homes and are respectful of the neighbors ie noise, parking, animals. When we have had renters they have not kept up the properties in the same way. Some have been respectful of others right and some have not.  

Stephen, you're putting words in my mouth and posts. Be nice and reread the post. I said there were always exceptions. Your too smart for these shenanigans.

Quote from: sheclown on October 17, 2009, 03:48:35 PM
How does having people in recovery hurt a neighborhood?  I really don't get that.  But it really doesn't matter.

Many of our men have lived in Springfield for decades.  If they are "passing through", they are not doing a very good job of it.  Again, it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is ...the Fair Housing Act makes is a violation of federal law to discriminate against people who are in recovery.  That means, no city, neighborhood, or state regulations can zone out a group of people, or even limit the number of disabled people in a neighborhood. 

and no one person or business should be actively trying to bring them all into one small square mile neighborhood. It is not good for either side, and very unfair for one small community to carry the burden of the entire city.

Some would say, it is hardly a "burden."

Quote from: stephendare on October 17, 2009, 04:41:26 PM
lol.  I love you! ;)

And so true!

We both are.!

Yeah, we really could both be doing something more productive than this. It is a waste of our talents. What should we focus on? Could it be something fun and productive Pleeaasse?

Well, I'm not one of those but you know what they say about opinions.

Lisa,

QuoteI'm saying I don't know anything about any so called new legislation but do support laws and the intention of laws already on the books. I would have to be educated on any issue before I could support or oppose it.

Well, as you are on the board, and I have been told that you have said that SPAR Council, or actually the phrase used was “we”, are going ahead with the “new legislation”, I find you not knowing about it as being very odd.  If  I were you I would make a few calls and find out what’s going on. A suggestion just in case you really are out  of the loop.

QuoteThe city does a poor job of enforcing existing laws whether it be zoning, preservation or any other issue and that is a problem. I agree with what Dan has said in the past that just because someone can find a way around a law or use conflicting interpretations to further their business endeavors or personal mission does not mean they should.

And yet, here we have you on the SPAR Council board who regularly just interprets your own by-laws as you see fit.  Interesting that you try to hold others to a higher level than you hold yourself.

QuoteJoe, you love to bash and damn everyone (developers, SPAR, residents of Springfield)for their views that you do not support while belittling our views and concerns about your mission to bring recovering addicts en masse into the neighborhood we live in.

Actually, I have “bashed” very few.  And typically, only those who have “bashed” me. Unlike some on the SPAR Council, I have this annoying habit of using something called facts.  But, you have proven many times that lies and innuendo can get you pretty far, it just isn’t very, well, pretty. And the mission isn’t bringing recovering addicts to Springfield, it is taking care of the ones that are here.

QuoteYou have a mission that you believe in but that does not make your mission, business or rights any more important than ours.

True, but it also doesn’t make it less important than yours.

QuoteWe are homeowners that live here with our families, though you have less concern for our feelings than you do for recovering addicts that are paying your mortgages while just passing through the neighborhood.

Passing through the neighborhood,  How is it that you can defend others moving out of the community but throw it up in our faces every change you get.  And the fact the we spend more time in Springfield even now and once lived there longer than many who constantly ridicule us means nothing?  It is fine for someone you like to just have businesses here or just have investments here, but not us.  I get it .  It’s personal.

QuoteYou do not care about our concerns but demand that we care about yours. It doesn't work that way and doesn't garner any support for your cause.

Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t.  It depends on whether your take on this is right or not.

QuoteI get that you FEEL you have been unfairly attacked by a FEW but how does going against the wishes of so many neighbors correct that.

Hmmm… the 10 or so e-mails from Louise to Dr. Gaffney, Kimberly Scott and Sean Kelly that mention me by name and refer to all the damage I have done, all the bad things I am doing and the fact that no one from SPAR Council or Dr. Gaffney’s office has ever called me to see what is really going on isn’t supposed to make me feel like I am being really being attacked? Interesting take on it, Lisa.  And what neighbors are you talking about again?  The ones that have had only the lies and innuendo from SPAR Council to base any decision on?

QuoteYou have stated on several occasions that SPAR just cares about winning a perceived battle with you but I see it the other way.

I’m sure you do.

QuoteYou will damn the whole neighborhood and spite us by forcing your mission and business down our throats because of some vendetta against SPAR.

It would seem there is more of a vendetta against us.  We would have been just as happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but we instead have been labeled, once again, as the bad guys.  So be it. But you can not fault us for picking up the challenge.  You could be referring to us being involved with pointing out the lack of following the laws of the organization on the part of the Executive Board, but then , there were just regular residents involved with that as well.   As to this damning of the neighborhood, go look at a couple of the other Springfield threads; Louise seems to have been doing a pretty good job of that herself.

QuoteSPAR is not hurt by having multiple halfway houses/boarding houses/quasi halfwayhouses or detox centers in the neighborhood. The ones hurt are the families who chose to put down roots here and invest their money to rehab a home and bring this historic neighborhood back from the dregs and despair it had been reduced to

.

See, once again, as investors and business owners, you consider us second class citizens and that we have fewer rights than just old regular home owners.  Have you told that to Mack?  After all, he doesn’t live here either.

QuoteIn the end if winning makes you feel good in spite of hurting the families and full time residents of Springfield you will only deserve our contempt.

No, winning, to use your turn of phrase, has in the past and will in the future, be about nothing but securing the rights of a group of people who are as much  residents as you are and have the same rights as such as you do.  If I earn your contempt for doing that, then I will wear that contempt with pride.

Already we have your contempt, have had your contempt for years....really what will change?

So stephendare, is there any number that you feel would be reasonable to limit the number of unrelated individuals (not including law, marriage or blood) living in a single family home that should be regulated?

I do think there should be regulation on what "Single-family residence" means. Otherwise what is the point of zoning at all?

Is this really about an organization attempting to correct what they feel is wrong - or - is this where they want to set a precedent and have sufficient ammunition for a one-sided argument in the future?

Quote from: stephendare on October 17, 2009, 11:17:56 PM
use of property.so that you dont have poisonous industrial businesses opening next door.

like recovery homes?

OK, so where would YOU like the recovery homes to be? "Just not here" is not a valid response.

The question was to you Stephendare- should there be no limit on single family home? Should I be allowed to cram 45 unrelated individuals into 1 bath 1 bedroom home, no matter what neighborhood it's in?

Quote from: iluvolives on October 17, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
The question was to you Stephendare- should there be no limit on single family home? Should I be allowed to cram 45 unrelated individuals into 1 bath 1 bedroom home, no matter what neighborhood it's in?

And my question was to you iluvolives...

I have no issue with boarding homes or recovery homes, braeburn, I grew up my entire life in riverside with one two doors down from my home with no issues. However I do feel that there should be regulation on the number of unrelated individuals  living in a single family home, otherwise it should be reclassified as multi family. As I have stated, my main issue with the thread is that it is misleading in the fact that it is saying that SPAR is creating a new law (where one already exists) and the fear mungoring that is implies that families with adopted children may be pushed out on the streets- it's ridiculous. 

Quote from: strider on October 17, 2009, 09:26:12 PM
Lisa,

Quote

Well, as you are on the board, and I have been told that you have said that SPAR Council, or actually the phrase used was “we”, are going ahead with the “new legislation”, I find you not knowing about it as being very odd.  If  I were you I would make a few calls and find out what’s going on. A suggestion just in case you really are out  of the loop.

 

You might want to start taking your own advice and go straight to the source instead of listening to what others supposedly have said. The whole "We are going ahead with the new legislation" quote that supposedly came from me is a complete fabrication. I think you know that sources you are using are not reliable or knowledgable but you would rather the hype. You might want to look in the mirror when calling people liars. You have accused me falsely and called me a liar many times and I'm tired of the hypocrasy. From someone who likes to threaten legal action I would think that you would refrain from constantly accusing innocent people of imaginary actions.

QuoteMy Quote:
Well, as you are on the board, and I have been told that you have said that SPAR Council, or actually the phrase used was “we”, are going ahead with the “new legislation”, I find you not knowing about it as being very odd. If I were you I would make a few calls and find out what’s going on. A suggestion just in case you really are out of the loop.

Lisa's quote:
You might want to start taking your own advice and go straight to the source instead of listening to what others supposedly have said. The whole "We are going ahead with the new legislation" quote that supposedly came from me is a complete fabrication. I think you know that sources you are using are not reliable or knowledgable but you would rather the hype.

Well, it is true that I am basing that comment on the word of someone else.  However, I have heard it several times so I doubt very much that it is a complete fabrication.  I will ask about it again, but for now, I will concede that there may be a communication error and will apologize to you for my previous statement.  However, the rest of my post certainly does stand.  You do need to make a few calls and see what is going on as it seems you are being kept in the dark.  The written proof exists that SPAR Council is having Dr. Gaffney draft some kind of legislation about this issue.

QuoteYou might want to look in the mirror when calling people liars. You have accused me falsely and called me a liar many times and I'm tired of the hypocrasy. From someone who likes to threaten legal action I would think that you would refrain from constantly accusing innocent people of imaginary actions.

You also need to go look in that mirror as you have repeatedly, as a board member of SPAR Council, been a party a smear campaign against me, and worse, against a whole group of legal residents of Springfield, that is more often than not based on bold faced lies and not a campaign just on public forums where you sometimes expect things like this, but in E-mails to and in meetings with many city officials.  Statements that have no truth to them have been mailed to the public or e-mailed and posted by members of SPAR Council and the Executive board on multiple occasions.  And the legal action I have threatened has been only twice. First during the legal action taken against us two years ago and second recently to say that further harassment would result in legal action. We are heading that way.

This brings me to this; what innocent people am I accusing of imaginary actions?  The members of SPAR Council that I have accused of anything are far from innocent as proven by the e-mails they send, the laws they misquote and the actions they take. And those e-mails, false statements and unfounded complaints I have copies are far from imaginary.

Quoteis there any number that you feel would be reasonable to limit the number of unrelated individuals (not including law, marriage or blood) living in a single family home that should be regulated?

Perhaps the answer you are looking for is that there is no need to set a new limit, one already exists.  It has existed for many years.  It is basically written that up to five (5) unrelated adults are defined as a family and may live in a single family home.  As stated earlier in this thread, there is no limit on those related by blood, marriage, ETC. 

Why not just leave it be then?  Well, if you do not like the men and women who use that part of the law to live together as a family unit, you look for ways to stop them from doing it.  If the current laws do not work to move these people out, then you must look for ways around the law. We have it an very good authority that someone involved with SPAR Council did ask if the city could just harass us until we moved, but as that would not be legal nor morally proper, they got told no, the city wouldn’t do that.

So, how do you get these people out of your neighborhood?  As you keep pushing the Code Enforcement for an answer, you hear that the owners of the houses complained about do not have to let code enforcement people into the homes so the proving  an illegal use is harder to do. 

This leave you with three basic choices.  One is to accept that these people have every right to be here.  Another is to try to get a law passed that would enable code enforcement to enter complained about houses without owner permission.  But that sounds a bit 1984 to me.

Another, and the most likely option is to somehow change the definition of a family and a single family home.  This can be accomplished by reducing the number of unrelated people who may reside in a single family home or possibly somehow redefining a “family” of unrelated people as something else other than a family and so eliminating them from being able to live in a single family home. However, the latter seems a little bit of a stretch and the former is an easier sell.  I say that because one can find other communities that  have lower numbers in some cases. 

So, above is what we believe is going on.  The written proof that has been backed up by verbal confirmation is that something at least on these lines is indeed going to be introduced.  It is my contention than all of the possible choices are morally corrupt and all have far reaching and very bad consequences for all of Jacksonville.

if you have multiple "families" living under one roof - why not call it what it is, "multi-family"?

Joe, I don't believe multiple people have given you this false information about me and it IS false. All of these SPAR themed posts sound like one big conspiracy theory being fanned by a few people. The big thing everyone seems to be missing is that SPAR is not some random, rougue group but an organization made up of individual residents of Springfield. We do not give up our right to have individual opinions like every other resident because we happen to sit on a board that meets once a month for a couple of hours. Much of the day to day goings on are handled by the executive board and staff of which I am not part of. Many have tried to quiet my opinion and those of others by labeling us SPAR, board members, developers or any other group they may deem not worthy of having an opinion. When I post I am always speaking my opinion not that of any group including SPAR and that is my right. If you want to get an official SPAR stance contact the executive director or a member of the executive board.

I was trying to research the current "single family" law on the books. I could not find where it defines what a "family" is in regard to zoning laws. If it's defined in City ordinance, Florida Statutes or Federal Law, could someone who has this info please post where it is defined ?

Quote from: stephendare on October 18, 2009, 12:52:35 PM
I dont know if its a big conspiracy, and its certainly not a very unusual or uncommon kind of a thing.

When SPAR was doing good things in the community, it had less than 50 thousand a year budgets.

Once it started trying to drive out people who would 'bring down property values' or demolishing buildings that 'brought down property values', and declaring war on the owners of commercial property pressuring them to sell or else, suddenly it had triple the budgets---up to 175,000.00 dollars a year, funded directly by the people making money off of the real estate honey pot.

What is complex or difficult to understand about that?

What is difficult for me to understand about it, is why is the neighborhood supposed to put up with this malarky?

Stephen, I just don't see proof of this. I'm sure there are individuals that feel this way but I just don't see proof of a concerted effort by a group and SPAR has no authority to tear down properties, kick people out or force anyone to sell. No one is trying to kick groups of people out of the neighborhood, just restrict new boarding/halfway homes from opening per the zoning code. OK, I have to correct this. As individual residents we have tried pretty hard to run the criminals out out of the neighborhood and have been pretty successful. As far as the numbers, that additional money was not SPAR's to spend. The crime fund and litter patrol funds which were donated by individuals or businesses just ran through SPAR. The office took the money in and paid it to the groups it was designated for by those donating. 

Stephen,

you couldn't misrepresent this issue more if you tried. "You won't be able to invite your college friends over if SPAR gets thier way!!!"

Geez. This is Fox News level of disingenuous manipulation of facts & intent.

This is about enoforcing CURRENT laws, for a most part.

Your various facebooks comments post earlier are ridiculous. The opinion's of those who OWN property in the area trump those whio are just passing through. Care to guess where most property owner's opinions fall on this issue?

You've already stated that'd you'd be fine with 50 non-realted people living in a residence, if the owner was ok with it.

This puts you in a very small, very odd minority. Which is a good thing.

And you continue to act like this is a shocking, unheard of act by SPAR when in realty this is common across the US.

How about being more honest and less shadey? That would do wonders for your credibility on this and future issues.

I think a community wide summit would be a great idea. Lets all get together and have a vote once and for all. All voters would have to have proof of a springfield address.

I would assume any concerted effort would be to keep Joe from expanding his empire, something he promised us profusely he would not do back when we worked on a compromise last year. A promise that everyone from City Council members, GC, city employees and Spar members heard loud and clear but wasn't kept.

You left out my last sentence. Why should anyone who doesn't live, own property or have a business in the neighborhood have a say? I don't try to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do in their neighborhoods.

Quote from: Springfield Girl on October 18, 2009, 02:38:49 PM
I think a community wide summit would be a great idea. Lets all get together and have a vote once and for all. All voters would have to have proof of a springfield address.
[/quote

What question did you want me to answer earlier?

Of course no one has to ask SPAR for anything but sometimes it is a helpful first stop.

Quote from: stephendare on October 18, 2009, 03:44:14 PM
Business people spend way more money than residents (and the employees are usually there almost as much)
The schools churches and charities also have a huge stake both monetarily and commitment wise.
And the City needs an accurate gauge as to what 'the neighborhood' really wants.

Not to mention landowners like Hionides.  He owns a hella lot more than you and I do. 

So are you saying people who spend more money should have more say ? Not each person one vote ?

Quote from: cindi on October 18, 2009, 11:03:49 AM
if you have multiple "families" living under one roof - why not call it what it is, "multi-family"?

I'm not sure what you mean.  We are talking about unlrelated people living together as a single family unit.  Multifamily actually refers to more than one dwelling unit, like a triplex for instance,  and each unit can be considered a single family home.

And FSU813, it is not about enforcing the current laws, the current laws have been enforced and the people you do not like are still legally here.  It is now about wanting to change the laws to get what you want.

Quote from: AlexS on October 18, 2009, 01:28:47 PM
I was trying to research the current "single family" law on the books. I could not find where it defines what a "family" is in regard to zoning laws. If it's defined in City ordinance, Florida Statutes or Federal Law, could someone who has this info please post where it is defined ?

Hi Alex,

I had trouble finding that myself.  It doesn’t appear to be part of the actual code in the sense that it is a definition rather than a passage within the code. At least that is the only place I have ever found it and what I have found matches what Sean Kelly has e-mailed the SPAR Council office.  This also explains why the definition of family is not covered within the overlay itself as the definitions cover all zoning codes, including the overlay.

You can go to coj.net, zoning, then zoning code on the left.  This, as you know, takes you to municode and then I just searched for definitions …..  It is Part 16.


Definition for dwelling unit:
Dwelling, multiple-family means a building containing more than one dwelling unit.
Dwelling, one-family or single-family means a building containing only one dwelling unit. The term is not to be construed as including recreational vehicles, tents, houseboats or other forms of temporary or portable house. Manufactured homes and modular homes which comply with the provisions of Subpart C, Part 4 of the Zoning Code are considered single-family dwellings. For the purposes of this Zoning Code, row houses, townhouses, condominiums, cooperative apartments or other form of dwelling units which are not in individual detached buildings meeting all the requirements of a single-family dwelling shall not be construed to be single-family dwellings. A building in which a room or other portion is rented to or occupied by someone other than a part of the family shall not be considered to be a single-family dwelling.

Dwelling unit means a room or rooms connected together constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for a family, for owner occupancy or for rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, physically separated from other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure and containing sleeping facilities and one kitchen.


Definition for family:
Family means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit; provided, that, unless all members are related by law, blood, adoption or marriage, no family shall contain over five persons. Domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a separate or additional family or families. The term family shall not be construed to mean a fraternity, sorority, club, monastery or convent, rooming or boardinghouse, emergency shelter, emergency shelter home, group care home, residential treatment facility, recovery home or nursing home, foster care home or family care home

As I understand it the designation of a single family home refers to the structure type, but does not set limits regarding interpersonal/biological relationships of the occupants.

It seems rather obvious that the ire is being directed at the recovery homes. Will it also be directed at Gay couples who cannot legally marry in the State of Florida?

Live and let live seems to be dying.

do gay couples usually live with 4 other people in the same house, unrelated by blood, adoption, or law?

no?

ok, then it wouldn't affect them.

Actaully, i'm pretty sure SPAR doesn't care what happens in Arlington or on Kernan Blvd.

I think they'd be happy settling for thier own neighborhood.

What do you think?

i realize that it seems like the occupancy limit is just an evil plot by spar (which by the way i am so NOT a fan of) however - Living in overcrowded conditions affects people’s lives in a number of ways. Studies (again, not SPAR sponsored) have shown that overcrowding has a detrimental effect on people’s emotional, mental and physical health, adversely affects children’s development and educational attainment as it makes it difficult for children to concentrate on tasks such as studying and doing their homework, puts households at a greater risk of illness and infection, poor diet and nutrition.can have a negative impact on family life and relationships as the lack of space and privacy can cause tension and stress.can be a potential driver for anti social behaviour and youth crime when combined with a lack of suitable space outside.

Overcrowding enables the spread of acute respiratory infections, tuberculosis, meningitis, and intestinal parasites.  Epidemiological have shown a positive association between crowding and the transmission of tuberculosis and respiratory infections

so, while you may think that it is perfectly fine to put your 45 people (related or not) in one of our standard houses - again, just cause yoiu can, doesn't mean you should.

studies aren't even needed. simple common sense will do.

common sense isn't as common as you would think.

Ok, where in the world did this 45 number come from?  We aren't talking about allowing those numbers in any way.  We are talking about the current law that says 5 unrelated adults are considered to be a family and therefore may live together in a single family home.  Some seem to think this is bad and so want to somehow change the law, possibly to 3 unrelated adults.

Talking about over crowding is just by-passing this issue.  Somehow, I highly doubt that anyone will come up with a study that says five unrelated adults is overcrowding, but perfectly OK if you are related by blood.  I believe some have posted that they did not believe the city should set limits, but that is for another discussion and not applicable to this one.

We can also find other municipalities that have similar laws; some that have 3, some five and I have seen even up to 8.  I can also find records of lawsuits where the result was that a community had to allow up to 10 or 12 unrelated adults in some situations, regardless of what the law said.  This is also not what we are talking about.

Today, we are not concerned with adding to this 5 number.  We simply want to insure that  SPAR Council and it's various supporters do not somehow get it changed.  That would be unfair to many within the city of Jacksonville.

Are there square footage per inhabitant guidelines attached to this?

Quote from: sheclown on October 16, 2009, 07:39:12 PM
As it is currently stated by law, you could move 45 of your closest relatives into your home, but not your friends.  Only four friends could move in.

this is where the "45" came from.  yes, i do realize it is a grossly overstatement but the concept still applies.

Quote from: buckethead on October 19, 2009, 01:50:59 PM
Are there square footage per inhabitant guidelines attached to this?

no, this is not a square footage issue.

Quote from: stephendare on October 19, 2009, 02:30:03 PM
cindi, i think i covered that issue under the disease and sanitation issue.

it's not just the sanitation, it is not a good "mental health" practice either.

Quote from: stephendare on October 19, 2009, 03:13:41 PM

Quote from: cindi on October 19, 2009, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: stephendare on October 19, 2009, 02:30:03 PM
cindi, i think i covered that issue under the disease and sanitation issue.

it's not just the sanitation, it is not a good "mental health" practice either.

we do not disagree in any way.

At least I think we don't.  You agree that nothing stops this situation from happening so long as the inhabitants are related or employed, right?

correct

Well if you were in the Military.....depending upon your rank, you would be entitled to "x" amount of cubic space but this ain't the Armed Forces! SPAR is tying to get those involved in halfway houses or boarding houses excluded and there are no laws on the books at this time that would prohibit that from being done! They keep stomping on people toes and you guys may have to take legal action......I see it coming down to that!

Hmmm, don't suppose I'll be invited to this meeting do ya?

Hey, I saw Sean that day as well...do I get any brownie points?

I would like to go to a meeting about us as well.

Probably top secret, Joe.

Dan, Alex, Doug, Matt, Phil...you guys okay with SPAR doing this?  Holding meetings with city officials without inviting us, consulting us, talking to us?  Is this how a neighborhood organization ought to conduct business?  Making us a "Red Alert?"

Just wondering, here.

Just so no one will have to go dig this up:

an e-mail we sent to Dr. gaffney's office today.

QuoteDr. Gaffney,

This is our official request that we be included in any future meetings and discussions on the “rooming house issue“ in not only Springfield, but all of Jacksonville.  This issue and the discussions surrounding this issue have an impact on the rights of many.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Joe Markusic
Gloria DeVall

And apparently, sheclown, everyone, Dan, Alex, Doug, Matt, Phil,  is alright with with how SPAR Council is conducting it's "business" against us....good to know....and that means, we will continue to do what we must...

Quote from: strider on October 23, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
And apparently, sheclown, everyone, Dan, Alex, Doug, Matt, Phil,  is alright with with how SPAR Council is conducting it's "business" against us....good to know....and that means, we will continue to do what we must...

Silence does neither imply agreement nor disagreement. So don't put words in my mouth. I will say myself what I have to and decide when and if to do so. Enough for now.

Alex, my point was, we are told that we are wrong for dragging this all “through the mud“, but it certainly seems OK to many that SPAR Council does it to us. We are told we need to go get more facts before we post anything, yet we get excluded from meetings where few facts are offered by SPAR Council. Perhaps it was wrong to include you in that statement, but then again, perhaps you could have spoken up and said it was wrong on SPAR Council’s part if that is how you feel.  When a question is asked and goes unanswered, the wrong conclusions can be drawn. You can certainly be lumped in with the wrong faction. If that is the case here, just say so and I will be happy to apologize. But the middle of the road is not always the best path.

It was my question and I get to answer (not you Strider -- eat some lunch, you are getting grumpy).

Alex isn't going to do anything until he has had a lot of time to think about it.  He is methodical. Doug certainly is too classy to get involved in a SPAR Wars on the forum.  I don't really know Matt well, and Phil has said that he just wants to be left alone.  That doesn't mean that they would not stand up for us and for our rights in a less public forum.  Maybe, maybe not.

Silence just means that it isn't laid out for everyone to see.  You know as well as I do, many many things are happening behind the scenes both for us and against us.  Time will tell.

Love ya.

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 23, 2009, 03:51:10 PM
Sorry for 2 posts, just trying to up my perceived credibility; get out of Newbie status.

Dude, you are so not even close. Cindi has you beat by double.

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 23, 2009, 03:27:55 PM

Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2009, 09:44:05 PM
I would like to go to a meeting about us as well.

Probably top secret, Joe.

Dan, Alex, Doug, Matt, Phil...you guys okay with SPAR doing this?  Holding meetings with city officials without inviting us, consulting us, talking to us?  Is this how a neighborhood organization ought to conduct business?  Making us a "Red Alert?"

Just wondering, here.

Whether I agree or disagree with the issue is irrelevant.  I don't see any reason why you should expect to be invited.  People and organizations have a right to speak with their councilman without inviting anyone else.  This being the case, you should have a meeting with him as well to speak your mind on the issue; it doesn't necessarily need to be a group meeting (both sides present simultaneously) at this point. 

Your legal assessment is a bit off...

You're welcome to read the relevant portions of F.S. 286.0115 yourself:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0286/SEC0115.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0286-%3ESection%200115#0286.0115 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0286/SEC0115.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0286-%3ESection%200115#0286.0115)

SPAR is discussing these issues with COJ representatives not in a vacuum, but with an eye towards the introduction of legislation. So by failing to publicly disclose the nature and content of the ex-parte meetings, and by failing to make them part of the public record, this situation creates the presumption of prejudice when reviewing the closed-door meetings and any legislation ultimately produced by the parties involved.

I gotta say, between this B.S., and the stack of e-mails and bogus complaints about them that they've accumulated, all coming from the same source (SPAR), strider and sheclown are sitting on a pretty decent lawsuit against SPAR and COJ for tortious interference, if and when anything ever actually happens. I hope SPAR's D&O and E&O policies are paid-up. They're going to need it.

And this closed-door ex-parte communication between an elected member of a governing body and a quasi-governmental entity (by virtue of its receipt of grant funds, its involvement in local law enforcement through the crime fund, etc., etc.) regarding legislation that ultimately impacts someone else's business, not to mention however many other people, is really not helping matters any.

Everybody involved here is pretty much cruising for a bruising. I've said on here 100 times Joe ought to go hire a lawyer, especially after Louise tried to 'ban' him from a public meeting (which she can't do) with bogus assault allegations. But despite it not being in their best interests, he still seems intent on trying to work things out anyway. Personally, I'd have already landed them in court by now, I can't understand it myself. So as much everyone wants to run around vilifying them for their chosen profession, I think Joe & Co. have shown an exceptional amount of patience with this situation.

But keep poking that beehive and patience, like any well, eventually runs dry. He has a *right* to the information *by law*. Nobody has to "invite" him to share in what should be a public meeting to begin with, and he doesn't have to beg to learn what was discussed. Let me repeat: He has a *right* to it.

Chris, You're hired!!

with the evidence presented so far ..... you would lose...... as if I was a juror anyway.

I went to the link.  I will need to print it out to digest it, but I hear what you are saying.  I did call the city today and talk to them about the Sunshine Laws, meetings and etc.  You gotta love Florida.

Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2009, 08:59:39 PM
Chris, You're hired!!

You know Gloria, if thats the route you feel you need to go, you might be better off hiring some actual lawyers (you know, ones that are allowed to practice law), rather than the pretend ones that like to spout off around here.

At least, that's what I would do.

 Chris has righteous "spouting" directly from law school.

Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2009, 10:50:49 PM
Chris has righteous "spouting" directly from law school.

But isn't "spouting directly from law school" prohibited until you actually pass the bar ? Just wondering.

Quote from: 02roadking on October 23, 2009, 09:08:52 PM
with the evidence presented so far ..... you would lose...... as if I was a juror anyway.

Thankfully you'd be eliminated in 3 seconds in voir dire, as would anyone else who lives in that neighborhood.

The prejudiced mindset of the majority of residents against rooming houses of any type, without consideration of whether they're legal, and regardless of whether they were there for decades before you ever moved into the neighborhood, is pretty well-documented.

All these mini-napoleons running around screaming "property values" in the middle of what is, quite frankly, still something of a ghetto, is kind of laughable. You chose to move there, and should have accepted what that entailed at the time. This includes a number of *legal* halfway houses and rooming houses that have been around since kingdom come.

I don't understand where this mindset comes from, where I can move into a place and then demand that everybody I don't like all of a sudden has to move out? This reminds me of those idiots who move in right next to an airport then start lobbying to shut it down because of the noise levels.

Quote from: AlexS on October 24, 2009, 01:54:29 AM

Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2009, 10:50:49 PM
Chris has righteous "spouting" directly from law school.

But isn't "spouting directly from law school" prohibited until you actually pass the bar ? Just wondering.

Not unless I'm charging someone for legal services or misrepresenting something.

When it comes to my personal opinions on SPAR/COJ's Sunshine Law problems, and of how they're treating Joe and Gloria, I'm more than free to spout away. Last time I checked, I still have the right to my own thoughts.  ;)

And assuming this crap is still going on after I take the bar in February and am licensed, I'd happily do this one for free

Quote from: Dan B on October 23, 2009, 10:02:40 PM

Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2009, 08:59:39 PM
Chris, You're hired!!

You know Gloria, if thats the route you feel you need to go, you might be better off hiring some actual lawyers (you know, ones that are allowed to practice law), rather than the pretend ones that like to spout off around here.

At least, that's what I would do.

Great, I know just who she should hire. Same guy I used when I sued COJ myself earlier this year. I'm sending her a PM right his name and contact info right now, thanks for the suggestion.  ;)

Or like I said, if this is still dragging on after February I'd be more than happy to take this one on for free.  8)

As to calling me a "pretend" lawyer, where'd you get your JD from again?

Quote from: AlexS on October 24, 2009, 01:54:29 AM

Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2009, 10:50:49 PM
Chris has righteous "spouting" directly from law school.

But isn't "spouting directly from law school" prohibited until you actually pass the bar ? Just wondering.

alex, not just passing the bar, but getting through the extensive background and fitness investigation.  Even though one may have passed the bar exam, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners has to issue a certificate of fitness to practice law and takes seriously the unauthorized practice of law, financial irresponsibility, abuse of legal process, evidence of emotional instability etc..  

Quote from: Karl_Pilkington on October 24, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
alex, not just passing the bar, but getting through the extensive background and fitness investigation.  Even though one may have passed the bar exam, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners has to issue a certificate of fitness to practice law and takes seriously the unauthorized practice of law, financial irresponsibility, abuse of legal process, evidence of emotional instability etc..  

C&F gets done when you submit your app, generally before you even sit for the exam. They have to give you an exam ticket, you don't just walk in unannounced and take a seat. You know that right?  ::) It's not some open casting call...

And as to your veiled commentary, if you think that my posting my personal opinion of SPAR and COJ's Sunshine Law violations on a public internet forum somehow represents UPL, then I absolutely 110% invite you to call the Bar. Knock yourself out. I don't care, and they won't either.

Maybe you can point out for me where I've said I'm representing anyone? Or that I said I was anything but what I am, which is a law student now waiting to take the bar in February? And maybe you can discuss what I charged the people that I didn't represent for the legal services I didn't provide and didn't claim I was providing? LMFAO, man! I'm just dying to hear how this is somehow UPL. Honestly, I think you should call, just for entertainment value.

Hey, here you go, here's their number: (850) 561-5839. Knock yourself out.

So, just so everyone is clear. Its perfectly reasonable to listen to, and take seriously, a person who tells you all about neighborhood he has never lived in, an organization he has never belonged to, and profession he has never worked in.

Everyone understand now?

Quote from: Dan B on October 24, 2009, 01:00:55 PM
So, just so everyone is clear. Its perfectly reasonable to listen to, and take seriously, a person who tells you all about neighborhood he has never lived in, an organization he has never belonged to, and profession he has never worked in.

Everyone understand now?

To address your idiotic statements:

1: I've had a couple dozen properties in and around Springfield over the last 10 years, and I'm more familiar with the economics and realities of the place than you'll probably ever be. Which, as a side note, is also why I choose not to live there. Not trying to start another neighborhood vs. neighborhood debate, I'm just being honest.

2: I've never belonged to SPAR, and again that was my choice and not mere happenstance. But I have had more than enough experience with them, none of it positive.

3: I have worked in and grew up in and around the legal profession. Both sides of my family are practicing attorneys going back several generations. I have also gone to law school. So while actually making a living as an attorney will be a new hat to wear for me this coming year, I again probably already know more about that than you ever will. Additionally, I have quite a bit of experience with these very same issues, and have actually sued COJ myself over this same kind of property enforcement B.S.

And since you brought it up, I'm probably the only one commenting here, besides for Joe and Gloria, who actually does have any firsthand experience with this stuff, and that's probably why I have no problem empathizing and seeing the injustice of what they're going through, just because a bunch of idiots whose sole talent is knowing how to dial a phone think it's brilliant to call in B.S. complaints and wage tongue-wagging crusades against their businesses. Bravo! You must be real proud of yourselves.

And if anyone has any doubts about the unjust and icy treatment these two well-intentioned people have received from their so-called "neighbors", I think these threads should pretty much sum it up (better than I ever could):

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6124.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6124.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5752.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5752.0.html)

And if you're just looking for general and all-too-common displays of arrogance and attitude by the same type of Springfield residents, against members of their own community, then you really don't need to look far. Or even past the first 4 pages of this forum:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,1911.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,1911.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5640.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5640.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6265.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6265.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5582.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5582.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5164.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5164.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4840.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4840.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6411.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6411.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6505.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6505.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4779.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4779.0.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4442.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4442.0.html)

With such a "welcoming" sense of "community" (NOT), I don't see how you can blame people for NOT wanting to move right on in. So yeah, for now, I'll just stay right here on the water in Riverside thanks very much. Watching boats go by is more appealing than watching prostitutes go by while making myself feel better by belittling others and talking down about their businesses. And my neighbors are far less snotty.

No man, I get it. You aren't engaging in debate, or sharing knowledge. Your teaching the rest of us. Thank you!

Quote from: Dan B on October 24, 2009, 02:03:13 PM
No man, I get it. You aren't engaging in debate, or sharing knowledge. Your teaching the rest of us. Thank you!

Keep it up, you're doing a great job of displaying the exact arrogance and mindset I was referring to.

And for the record, I think Stephen hit this nail on the head in the (now locked) other thread, when he said that S'fielders seem to have this attitude that, unless you're SPAR-related or at least SPAR-approved, then you're not qualified to discuss anything. Ever.

QuoteThis is the default argument that ties together all things springfield.

Either no one else has a right to an opinion except for the small bunch of SPAR members, or else they are liars and cannot be trusted.  The list is literally endless on this.

Anytime any one disagrees with the official SPAR party line they get called a liar or devalidated.

Yup. Pretty much hit your nail right on the head, didn't he Dan?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2009, 02:09:33 PM
And for the record, I think Stephen hit this nail on the head in the (now locked) other thread, when he said that S'fielders seem to have this attitude that, unless you're SPAR-related or at least SPAR-approved, then you're not qualified to discuss anything. Ever.

QuoteThis is the default argument that ties together all things springfield.

Either no one else has a right to an opinion except for the small bunch of SPAR members, or else they are liars and cannot be trusted.  The list is literally endless on this.

Actually as someone who is a Springfielder, that is one of the more asinine comments I've heard. There are far more than SPAR members or SPAR-related people that consider themselves Springfielders. Yet we all get lumped together by BS comments like that. Talk about brushing with a broad stroke.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 24, 2009, 02:52:45 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2009, 02:09:33 PM
And for the record, I think Stephen hit this nail on the head in the (now locked) other thread, when he said that S'fielders seem to have this attitude that, unless you're SPAR-related or at least SPAR-approved, then you're not qualified to discuss anything. Ever.

QuoteThis is the default argument that ties together all things springfield.

Either no one else has a right to an opinion except for the small bunch of SPAR members, or else they are liars and cannot be trusted.  The list is literally endless on this.

Actually as someone who is a Springfielder, that is one of the more asinine comments I've heard. There are far more than SPAR members or SPAR-related people that consider themselves Springfielders. Yet we all get lumped together by BS comments like that. Talk about brushing with a broad stroke.

My apologies, nvrenuf, that was indeed too broad a brush. My comments were not intended to refer to you.

I do recognize that there is a significant chunk of people who don't like SPAR and have nothing to do with them. I certainly did not intend to lump these folks into the same boat, as it's not a neighborhood attitude, just an attitude held by that smaller but very vocal group within the neighborhood. I did not mean to characterize the entire neighborhood in that fashion, and my comments were only intended for a certain subset. I should have used clearer language.

And yes, I do realize the irony, as I just made this same point in the "Do you really know your neighbors" thread...

I gotta agree with you, Stephen.

The ones b!tching about all the personal attacks around here......are the same ones making the personal attacks.

I'm not sure when it became valid logic to go be rude and b!tchy to someone, then turn around and complain about too many personal attacks when the other person responds. It's like "Ha, if I accuse them of doing what I'm already doing, before they have a chance to point out that I'm already doing it, then I win!". Maturity level around here's really going down the crapper.

WTF? I guess we're back in 3rd grade all over again.