Does anyone have a list of the current board members, their positions, whether they were elected or appointed? When their term is up?
I would think the only way to get reliable information would be straight from the source.
Hmmm...we have been told and indeed have seen an e-mail to a (at the time) board member to go get info off of the website, newsletter, etc. The information on the website has been deemed inaccurate by a current board member on this very forum so it is very reasonable to ask this or other board members who post here for this information. It does seem like a reliable way to get the information as some of the "official" avenues are inaccurate.
Looks like the SPAR web site has been updated.
QuotePresident: Claude Moulton (also Legal)
Vice-President: Kharis Quaintance
Executive Director: Louise Despain
Secretary: Judy Connare
Treasurer: Jack Meeks
Mike Acampora
Jennifer Holbrook
Terrence Jones
Christina Salvatore
Lisa Simon
Gerry Troy
What happened to Pastor Gundy?
Pastor Gundy never showed to a single meeting even after he had specifically asked to have something placed on the agenda for discussion.
ha
Wasn't Pastor Gundy one of the hand picked? :-\
Yes. What happened to the other ones?
Apparently it's more important to stack the board with people who will always agree with you, regardless of whether or not they actually care, participate, or even show up for meetings. ::)
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
^I think the RAP board is very strong. I'm not 100% sure of exactly how the positions are set (other than the fact that exec director is hired, and chair is elected), but I think that RAP is doing a LOT behind the scenes now with committees.
"The Board
The RAP board is elected annually in February by the membership of the organization. The Board Governance Committee nominates candidates and the board approves the nominations prior to their submittal to the membership. Candidates are nominated based on the strategic needs of the organization and to ensure that RAP has geographic representation and input from the various neighborhoods within the District. Board members are comprised of historic district residents and business owners.
The 2009 Board consists of the following members:
Kay Ehas, Chair
Jeff Graf, Vice Chair
Bob Chamberlain, Treasurer
Gunilla Craven, Secretary
Kevin Flood, Legal Advisor
Reece Alford
Elaine Burnett, At Large Member
Bob Chamberlain
Doug Coleman
Janet Germany
Jean Grimsley, At Large Member
Kevin Kuzel
Jim Love
Robin Lumb
Jennifer Mansfield
Renee Maxey
Sally Robson
Leon Ross
Lisa Sheppard
Margaret Tocknell
Pamela Telis, At Large Member
Ronnie Candler Williamson
Wayne Wood (Founder)"
Hmmm...well I like the fact that they have such a large number of board members. More hands to do the work and more points of view to bring balance. Or is Riverside that much larger than Springfield?
I believe Springfield has approx 1,800 structures and can't remember if R/A's approx # of structures was 3,500 or 4,500 (or maybe something else entirely if memory fails). SPAR = 10 boardmembers, R/A = 23 boardmembers.
Spar Council can have up to 15 directors. It is actually down five compared to the beginning of the year. You should know this, Zoo, as you were the fifteenth and were appointed.
Quoteis elected annually
seems to be a large part of the difference between RAP and SPAR Council.
QuoteCandidates are nominated based on the strategic needs of the organization
This is a commonality, as is that board decisions are based on a majority vote of the board. (Though, if it were up to you, it would also be a large part of the difference between the two).
Quote from: hooplady on October 26, 2009, 04:46:39 PM
Hmmm...well I like the fact that they have such a large number of board members. More hands to do the work and more points of view to bring balance. Or is Riverside that much larger than Springfield?
Riverside/Avondale is much larger than Springfield, both by structure, and by population.
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
Quote from: zoo on October 26, 2009, 05:27:17 PM
QuoteCandidates are nominated based on the strategic needs of the organization
This is a commonality, as is that board decisions are based on a majority vote of the board. (Though, if it were up to you, it would also be a large part of the difference between the two).
And somehow, this is still very, very true.....
Quote from: strider on October 26, 2009, 05:23:58 PM
Spar Council can have up to 15 directors. It is actually down five compared to the beginning of the year. You should know this, Zoo, as you were the fifteenth and were appointed.
Quoteis elected annually
seems to be a large part of the difference between RAP and SPAR Council.
The bottom line is transparency and somehow I actually believe that RAP can and does follow their own by-laws. Can you say the same thing for SPAR Council? (Remember, the proof is in writing)
Yeah, the proof's in writing alright Strider...
But it doesn't seem to matter around these parts. The same small group of people just resorts to the same B.S. over and over again. They can't dispute the proof, because Louise hoisted herself on her own petard, and it came straight from the horse's mouth. So instead they just completely ignore it, and personally attack anyone who tries to discuss it. Cause', you know, that's valid logic ::)
Ahem...*cough*...*cough*...Dan B...*cough*...*cough*
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
I just noticed your excessively careful wording. You're the most disingenuous person I've seen online.
'Only' 1 "house" huh? Thinking back, that may *technically* be true, I think may only have had 1 "house" in Springfield, on Hubbard Street. And yeah, I sold that one. So I guess that's your disingenuous way of ignoring all the multi-unit apartment buildings? What, I guess they don't count since they weren't "houses"?
Do you have any low you don't stoop to in your crusades against people whose opinions you don't like? Or in order to try and deflect attention from where it ought to be? Which namely, is Louise's emails...
I have no interest in defending Louise. I am against future demolition. I called her, and I told her. We didnt yell at one another, she didnt tell me I was wrong. I wasnt banned from the building.
If everyone who believed that all demolition needs to stop did the same, then we would perhaps make up some ground on the issue, instead of doing each other in on the forum boards, or listening to a guy who once owned a house in Springfield tell us all how dumb we are for living here.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
I just noticed your excessively careful wording. You're the most disingenuous person I've seen online.
'Only' 1 "house" huh? Thinking back, that may *technically* be true, I think may only have had 1 "house" in Springfield, on Hubbard Street. And yeah, I sold that one. So I guess that's your disingenuous way of ignoring all the multi-unit apartment buildings? What, I guess they don't count since they weren't "houses"?
Do you have any low you don't stoop to in your crusades against people whose opinions you don't like? Or in order to try and deflect attention from where it ought to be? Which namely, is Louise's emails...
Actually, I believe your house on Hubbard was north of Springfield.
Your house on 1st is the only one that was technically in Springfield, and this may come as a shocker to you, but I lived here when you owned it, and I always wondered what it would take to turn that block around. I found it sad that the owners would let them fall into such disrepair, and still contiue shoving people into them.
At least Joe and Gloria shine their places up a bit.
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 07:08:05 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
I just noticed your excessively careful wording. You're the most disingenuous person I've seen online.
'Only' 1 "house" huh? Thinking back, that may *technically* be true, I think may only have had 1 "house" in Springfield, on Hubbard Street. And yeah, I sold that one. So I guess that's your disingenuous way of ignoring all the multi-unit apartment buildings? What, I guess they don't count since they weren't "houses"?
Do you have any low you don't stoop to in your crusades against people whose opinions you don't like? Or in order to try and deflect attention from where it ought to be? Which namely, is Louise's emails...
Actually, I believe your house on Hubbard was north of Springfield.
Your house on 1st is the only one that was technically in Springfield, and this may come as a shocker to you, but I lived here when you owned it, and I always wondered what it would take to turn that block around. I found it sad that the owners would let them fall into such disrepair, and still contiue shoving people into them.
At least Joe and Gloria shine the place up a bit.
You're missing a few in your analysis, Dan. The only actual "house" I ever owned in S'field was directly across from the education center on Hubbard, not on 1st. The 1st St. place was apartments, not a house. And I had other places on Hubbard, but apartments also, not a house. Either way, Hubbard or 1st, it's still in S'field. Along with a bunch of others I can think of off the top of my head. I think you have me pegged for someone else, or you're confused about which property.
But if we are actually talking about the same one on 1st Street, then you ought to know that when I owned that nightmare, I really tried to make it nice. It got trashed by lack of maintenance the last couple years, but that's under a different owner, I got out of that place. When I had it, I replaced something like 5 a/c units from theft. Finally I poured big cement pads and sunk rebar cages into the concrete, with the condensers inside. And guess what? Even then, some douchebags came with a torch and got them. Before Wayne Smith died, I dunno if you remember Smith's Superior Heating & Cooling, he was constantly having to invent new ways to save my condensers from winding up at Berman Brothers.
Honestly, I can't believe you are actually blaming me for not living over there. If an a/c unit can't stay put for a week, then WTF would happen to my car? Ugh...this is going where I don't want it to go. I am not trying to bash the neighborhood, I think it has a lot of potential or I wouldn't have messed with it in the first place. I did put my money where my mouth is, so quit questioning my motives. But I couldn't deal with the B.S. and headaches of living there.
Its odd, but I have had the same units for over 6 years!
Oh sure, I have had a few things nicked, but by and large, I have found living in Springfield to be an incredibly rewarding experience.
If you would come spend some time over here with some people that lived here, you would hear the good and the bad of it. While we are fairly self-deprecating, we still love our neighborhood.
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
I have no interest in defending Louise. I am against future demolition. I called her, and I told her. We didnt yell at one another, she didnt tell me I was wrong. I wasnt banned from the building.
If everyone who believed that all demolition needs to stop did the same, then we would perhaps make up some ground on the issue, instead of doing each other in on the forum boards, or listening to a guy who once owned a house in Springfield tell us all how dumb we are for living here.
Nobody said you're dumb for living there.
And again, I only owned one "house", but I guess multiple apartment buildings don't count for squat? This is getting tedious.
And if you say you're not defending SPAR, then quit defending. I'm against demolition, and can't stand the fact that the only preservation group over there is in bed with developers who make their living off the demolition of the same housing stock the group exists to protect. SRG's entire business model depends on gorging itself with vacant lots. I think there's a connection there.
But if you want people to quit "doing each other in", you should be the first, since you're the main one doing it.
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 07:29:22 PM
Its odd, but I have had the same units for over 6 years!
Oh sure, I have had a few things nicked, but by and large, I have found living in Springfield to be an incredibly rewarding experience.
If you would come spend some time over here with some people that lived here, you would hear the good and the bad of it. While we are fairly self-deprecating, we still love our neighborhood.
Well looking back with 20-20 hindsight, I'm sure there'd be less problems if I'd lived in Springfield and had apartments in Riverside, rather than vice-versa. I'll give you that one. I think if you're around a lot, then you can keep an eye on stuff. I never had too much problems once the tenants were in, it was while the work was getting done that everything sprouted legs. Paint sprayers, a/c condensers, air handlers, water heaters, random tools. Anything with metal in it.
QuoteMore importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
Regrettably, this isn't yet a done deal. The developer is actively courting council members to overturn the expected JHPC denial.
That said, RAP is right in the middle of another proposed demolition on Greenwood Avenue. The owner of a 1920 bungalow (actually quite cute--and intact until he started disconnecting sewer and electrical lines, and removing all appliances in preparation for demolition) wants to tear down the house so he doesn't have to maintain it; he says he wants to grass it and keep the property for his grandchildren. It needs a new roof--$6K--but would cost only $5K to tear it down.
Anyway, the owner is quite prominent and well-connected, and is already planning to appeal the JHPC's denial to the CC. RAP is, of course, fighting the demolition, but the whole thing's been a major soap opera so far.
Grimms,
Random question.
SPAR and RAP are actually a lot more similar than many have given credit for. I know several Springfield residents who maintain their membership to RAP, even though they no longer live there. And conversly, I see riverside people at Springfield functions and places of business all the time.
So since there is a common cause, and we both have similar issue (house demolition, crime, awful roads, ect) Has there ever been any talk about maybe doing some sort of a merger, and increase the historic urban cores ability to work together on common issues?
i seriously doubt RAP would want to do this.
they've done most fo the heavy lifting and are reaping the rewards now. i doubt they want to muck through the toughest parts again.
There's never been any talk of a merger, to my knowledge. However, based on my positive experience with SPAR during Restore JAX, I've often thought the two organizations should be doing more things together. I think SPAR could learn a lot of things from RAP, and vice versa. In fact, I know Carmen Godwin has met with Louise to talk about SPAR's block captain program, and to brainstorm about how a similar initiative could work in RA. Another thing Kay Ehas, RAP's chair, is eager to see is a redistricting of the CPACs. RAP is presently part of 3 different CPACs, and often in, say, the SW CPAC, the issues are just totally different from what RAP deals with. The guy in charge of the CPAC program is apparently willing to consider putting RAP, SPAR, San Marco and downtown all in the same CPAC, which would certainly help the urban core areas speak with a common and far more effective voice. It would also help us share ideas and launch some interesting programs.
BTW, I maintain a SPAR membership, too. I'm saddened by some of the things I read on this board, but no organization is perfect, and starving it of money when it's doing some good things certainly won't help it improve.
Thanks for adding knowledge and thoughtfulness to what has been an ugly conversation Grimms.
Quote from: grimss on October 27, 2009, 07:31:55 PM
QuoteMore importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
Regrettably, this isn't yet a done deal. The developer is actively courting council members to overturn the expected JHPC denial.
That said, RAP is right in the middle of another proposed demolition on Greenwood Avenue. The owner of a 1920 bungalow (actually quite cute--and intact until he started disconnecting sewer and electrical lines, and removing all appliances in preparation for demolition) wants to tear down the house so he doesn't have to maintain it; he says he wants to grass it and keep the property for his grandchildren. It needs a new roof--$6K--but would cost only $5K to tear it down.
Anyway, the owner is quite prominent and well-connected, and is already planning to appeal the JHPC's denial to the CC. RAP is, of course, fighting the demolition, but the whole thing's been a major soap opera so far.
Ya, Bronson Lamb has more money than god, I think he's got a shot at influencing a re-vote. I dunno why he's making such a big deal out of it though. If he doesn't want the place anymore, for chrissakes' just sell it! I don't know why you have to knock it down. How much fun can you have with a vacant lot?
And if you had a rich granddad, would you rather get an empty lot or a historic house? LOL. Backwards thinking.
Grimss, while I don't speak for SPAR, I know the organization enjoyed working with you and RAP on Restore Jax in 2008, too. I know it was quite a bit of work coordinating the event and pulling it off, but any chance of doing it again in 2010?
Btw, I hope the CPAC reorg comes closer to happening. Springfield hasn't had much luck even getting T-U Community Sun sections re-org'ed so there is a "Downtown Sun", rather than Springfield lumped in Northside, San Marco lumped in Southside, R/A lumped in Westside, and no Downtown one at all. Not even sure T-U is doing these anymore, but if they are, or ever re-launch, I hope they give it a bit more thought...
Yes, there is a plan to redraw the planning districts, city wide. I think once the city gets a couple of planning deadlines out of the way later this year, it will become a higher priority.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
You are sadly mistaken if you think RAP is "transparent and honest".
They have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
Their close relationship with the JHPC is less than "transparent and honest". RAP feels it is more important to have a staffer from the JHPC at their COA meetings than the homeowner.
RAP is "effective" in angering and creating resentment in the neighborhood.
They are multiple young families in Riverside/Avondale that have greatly improved their home's appearance and value to the neighborhood and RAP fought them all the way.
Seems like they would have better things to do than pick fights with well intentioned homeowners over fence height, patio tile and drive ways.
Sorry for the thread drift, just tired of all the respect and admiration on this forum for a misguided organization like RAP. You guys in Springfield should be careful what you wish for...
Quote from: thirdeye on October 28, 2009, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
They have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
Actually, this might be a little better than what has happened in Springfield so far. If SPAR, or Code Enforcement find out about illegal work, they put out a stop order immediately. What this leads to is houses being left open for months at a time, roofs missing, windows missing, doors missing, and many times the deterioration of the house is expedited. A house with a bad roof can last a few years. A house with no roof falls apart rapidly.
a good example of this, there was a house at 7th and Perry, that the guy was putting a new roof on illegally. He was stopped, and the house is now gone, not two years later, because it say without a roof, and just rotted away.
If they had waited until he finished the rood, and THEN stopped him, maybe the house could have been saved.
Quote from: thirdeye on October 28, 2009, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
You are sadly mistaken if you think RAP is "transparent and honest".
They have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
Their close relationship with the JHPC is less than "transparent and honest". RAP feels it is more important to have a staffer from the JHPC at their COA meetings than the homeowner.
RAP is "effective" in angering and creating resentment in the neighborhood.
They are multiple young families in Riverside/Avondale that have greatly improved their home's appearance and value to the neighborhood and RAP fought them all the way.
Seems like they would have better things to do than pick fights with well intentioned homeowners over fence height, patio tile and drive ways.
Sorry for the thread drift, just tired of all the respect and admiration on this forum for a misguided organization like RAP. You guys in Springfield should be careful what you wish for...
Actually, both SPAR and RAP have similar meetings each month prior to the JHPC meeting. The staff of the JHPC do their to communicate to the applicants that their applications will be presented to the neighborhood organization design review committees for comments and the owners are invited to attend these meetings themselves to speak to their individual applications.
While the RAP meetings are more high profile and involved than the SPAR design review meetings the JHPC staff faithfully presents the applications going forward to the JPHC from the neighborhood to BOTH committees each month. This has been ongoing for years.
QuoteGrimss, while I don't speak for SPAR, I know the organization enjoyed working with you and RAP on Restore Jax in 2008, too. I know it was quite a bit of work coordinating the event and pulling it off, but any chance of doing it again in 2010?
Gee, I just don't know. Brenda at SPAR was such a huge part of pulling that event off; I don't know that either organization has the resources and manpower to repeat the event, at least right now. Also, the event was heavily dependent on sponsorships--it certainly wasn't put together to be a money maker--and in this environment, sponsorship commitments are pretty tough to come by.
QuoteThey have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
I'm not on RAP's Design Review committee, but I know that its activities, more than anything else the organization does, seem to provoke misperceptions and often ill will. The committee's purpose is to help homeowners understand the Historic District Design Ordinance so that they improve their chances of putting together a COA application the JHPC can approve. The ordinance is part of the city's code, not some random list of thing RAP likes or doesn't like. The city's historic planning department sends RAP notification of every application made in its district (they do this for SPAR, too), and the committee meets monthly to review those applications and determine RAP's position. These are also the meetings where homeowners interested in RAP's advice can present their plans for review (not a vote, not a thumbs up or thumbs down, but input on whether the plans as designed will pass muster before the JHPC). Homeowner participation is completely voluntary; typically, the E.D. will try to reach out to a homeowner if she's made aware of work on a house that might be in violation of the guidelines. You mentioned something about RAP waiting for the city to do its dirty work, I'm afraid I can't speak to that. Want to elaborate?
That said, where the Design Review can often get into trouble is when certain committee members try to "shape" the application in ways that aren't in the ordinance. As with any group, some folks are hard core while others are more flexible. In the last year, RAP has looked extensively at ways to reform its Design Review process to make it more user friendly, and to make sure RAP is standing as an advocate for the homeowner before the JHPC. Not every project is going to get RAP's backing because not every homeowner, frankly, is interested in complying with the city's rules. However, RAP is aware some of its past actions have seeded distrust in certain areas and it's trying to reform that process.
I not speaking as a RAP representative here, just giving my own perspective on what works, and doesn't, about the process. Personally, I think a lot of the issues some folks have with the organization stem from what it was doing two or three years ago (and beyond), under different E.D. leadership. The new E.D., Carmen Godwin, is fabulous and is really helping to refocus (and put a friendly face) of RAP's work in the community.
Quote from: thirdeye on October 28, 2009, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
You are sadly mistaken if you think RAP is "transparent and honest".
They have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
Their close relationship with the JHPC is less than "transparent and honest". RAP feels it is more important to have a staffer from the JHPC at their COA meetings than the homeowner.
RAP is "effective" in angering and creating resentment in the neighborhood.
They are multiple young families in Riverside/Avondale that have greatly improved their home's appearance and value to the neighborhood and RAP fought them all the way.
Seems like they would have better things to do than pick fights with well intentioned homeowners over fence height, patio tile and drive ways.
Sorry for the thread drift, just tired of all the respect and admiration on this forum for a misguided organization like RAP. You guys in Springfield should be careful what you wish for...
There's always one malcontent. Personally, I've had nothing but good experiences with RAP, and frankly, I think the bottom line is that they do their job quite well. You may not like it, but they definitely do their job very effectively.
So if someone wants to remove their original 110-year old windows and replace them with whatever they got on sale at Lowe's, then they're probably going to have a problem with RAP. Their mandate is historic preservation, and they take it seriously. Sometimes this means someone can't gut their house out, or slap on sears vinyl siding, or tear the place down entirely. I'm sorry if that offends some people, but those people shouldn't be buying into a registered historic district in the first place, if that kind of thing bothers them. It is what it is. I've heard people complain, calling them the "window police", or other stuff, etc., but you know, this is a historic district and everyone knew that going in.
I'm sorry people are pissed off that they can't slap $79 chinese windows in or call the bulldozers out whenever they feel like it. But FWIW, that doesn't mean RAP is the "bad guy" and it doesn't mean they aren't doing their job. Quite the reverse.
^Interesting.
Quote from: aubureck on October 28, 2009, 09:37:04 AM
Quote from: thirdeye on October 28, 2009, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 26, 2009, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Dan B on October 26, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
What do you think of the members of the RAP board? I mean, we hear a lot of your thoughts on Springfield (the section you have posted in more than any other, in fact), even though its a community that you have never lived in, and seem to have owned 1 house in 6 years ago, but nothing of the community you currently hang your hat in.
So how about it?
As anyone would tell you, RAP is strong, independent, and isn't dominated by one individual on the board or otherwise.
More importantly, RAP is actually effective, transparent, and honest. To wit, they just stopped wealthy developer and Renaissance Group owner Carlton Jones from demolishing a historic office building on Riverside Ave. that was originally one of the first clinics at the turn of the century. He wanted to tear it down and replace it with a CVS. RAP went to bat and put the kybosh on it.
That is...unlike SPAR, whose director is out cashing checks from developers, while actively emailing COJ to kvetch about why she isn't allowed to tear down historic structures as fast as she wants. So spare me your B.S., there is really no comparison. And you haven't really checked up on my post history if you think I'm only active on the SPR forum.
You are sadly mistaken if you think RAP is "transparent and honest".
They have meetings concerning homeowners projects without notifying the homeowner even when they are a member of RAP. Instead of notifying their own members who might be in violation they wait for the homeowner to complete the project then have the city do the dirty work for them.
Their close relationship with the JHPC is less than "transparent and honest". RAP feels it is more important to have a staffer from the JHPC at their COA meetings than the homeowner.
RAP is "effective" in angering and creating resentment in the neighborhood.
They are multiple young families in Riverside/Avondale that have greatly improved their home's appearance and value to the neighborhood and RAP fought them all the way.
Seems like they would have better things to do than pick fights with well intentioned homeowners over fence height, patio tile and drive ways.
Sorry for the thread drift, just tired of all the respect and admiration on this forum for a misguided organization like RAP. You guys in Springfield should be careful what you wish for...
Actually, both SPAR and RAP have similar meetings each month prior to the JHPC meeting. The staff of the JHPC do their to communicate to the applicants that their applications will be presented to the neighborhood organization design review committees for comments and the owners are invited to attend these meetings themselves to speak to their individual applications.
While the RAP meetings are more high profile and involved than the SPAR design review meetings the JHPC staff faithfully presents the applications going forward to the JPHC from the neighborhood to BOTH committees each month. This has been ongoing for years.
I have submitted 3 COA's in the last 2 years and have never been contacted by RAP or the JHPC to attend the RAP plan review. One of the reasons we left RAP.
I have a hard time believing that they "faithfully" represent the applications to RAP when at the JHPC hearing downtown their staff member implied that we were trying to skirt the system. What must they say in private?
QuoteI have submitted 3 COA's in the last 2 years and have never been contacted by RAP or the JHPC to attend the RAP plan review. One of the reasons we left RAP.
I have a hard time believing that they "faithfully" represent the applications to RAP when at the JHPC hearing downtown their staff member implied that we were trying to skirt the system. What must they say in private?
As I understand the process, when you submit a COA application downtown, the Historic Preservation staff of the Planning Dept. informs you that you have the option of meeting with the preservation group in your neighborhood (SPAR for Springfield, RAP for RA) to discuss your project. RAP doesn't know about a project unless 1) the Planning staff tells them, 2) the homeowner calls RAP, or 3) a neighbor calls RAP (in the last instance, it's usually work being done without a COA). Given the sometimes-tight turnaround between notification to RAP and presentation of the application before JHPC, there's literally no time for outreach to the homeowner. But where it's possible, I think RAP always prefers to meet with the homeowner first to help educate them about the appropriate regulations.
RAP's Design Review committee is staffed with volunteers that have special expertise in the City’s preservation ordinance; it meets regularly with residents who have asked for RAP’s help in navigating the JHPC process. If there are some clear red flags in what the homeowner wants to do (for example, replace historic windows), then the committee advises the homeowner that there's an issue (not just that RAP doesn't like the idea, but that the JHPC will in all likelihood deny the application). Also, RAP has a list of contractors and architects that are familiar with the preservation regulations and development within the historic district; their knowledge can help homeowners save time and money on their renovation projects.
No doubt the stances RAP takes at JHPC meetings can seem adversarial in those instances where a homeowner’s desires run counter to the principals guiding regulation of the city’s historical assets. Also, as noted previously, I think there are undeniably instances in the past where RAP's DR committee overstepped its boundaries and advocated design changes that were based on personal preferences rather what's required in the ordinance. However, as also noted earlier, the whole DR program is undergoing extensive review. Among the elements that are really being focused on is 1) putting committee members through a comprehensive training program and 2) reviewing the whole process from the applicant's perspective.
I've been the COA process myself, and on the opposite side of RAP, in fact. We wanted to put a standing seam metal roof on our new house (old one got flooded and had to be torn down). Both the HP dept and RAP recommended denial, arguing there weren't other houses in our neighborhood that had that type of roof treatment. (And no, I never got an invitation to come before Design Review.) I did my homework, collected evidence that showed ample examples of metal roofs in the district, put forth some good arguments about why it was actually the historically correct roof, and got the JHPC to approve it. No harm, no foul, although admittedly I might have been bitter had I been turned down. However, I never took RAP's opposition personally--its stance was based on its understanding of the city's regulations.