Metro Jacksonville

Monday lunch time and I just got back from the Special Masters Hearing on "illegal" rooming houses.
The house on Perry Street had been cited as an “illegal rooming house” and was before the Special Masters a quasi-judicial hearing.

The house in question is a tri-plex which currently houses 10 people.

Angi’s other house on east 3rd was found to be in compliance and the violation was dismissed last week.

All big wigs were there, head of planning Sean Kelly, head of code enforcement, Kimberly Scott, all SPAR players, Jack Meeks, Claude Moulton, Louise herself, Chris Farley, a couple of Downings and about a dozen assorted well-healed white people (and white haired) from the neighborhood. Looks like the special master doesn't want to get into the business of protecting their NIMBYISMS. He said they didn't have enough proof that the use was inconsistent and besides "we all shared a house when we were in college, didn't we?"

He sent Sean Kelly back to the drawing board. He has to prove that the ACTUAL use is inconsistent and (since five unrelated ARE allowed to live together -- Sean’s now claiming that it is what the house is USED for that is the problem…ie a sober house). The home owner will have to let him in to do another inspection. But it was a HUGE disappointment for those wishing to clear the neighborhood of such uses.

The huffing and puffing was deafening.

When we left, a LOLA, yelled out to Joe "go ahead, lie some more!!" At which point Joe goes back to them and starts defending himself, and then the man of the LOLA says "get out of her face" and I had to pull Joe away.  (Joe, actually, did not speak at the meeting at all.)   It was all very typically Springfield drama at its finest.

At least the LOLAS were sober this time.

Notably absent were the younger blood of SPAR.

If you want to label me (and go ahead, I'm getting used to being labeled in Jax), it'd be more accurate to call me a NOMIMBYist -- NO More In My Backyard, and clearly there are others in Springfield who feel this way, too.

Sheclown, please tell us how many of your sober houses you have opened/operated in your very own North Shore neighborhood?

Zoo, my dear, Angi's houses were in operation before YOU moved into the neighborhood.

Quote from: sheclown on March 01, 2010, 02:17:04 PM
Zoo, my dear, Angi's houses were in operation before YOU moved into the neighborhood.

As there was only one house on Perry on the agenda for today, I assume it's this one. How does this relate to "Angi" ?

QuoteMCE Case # PICS Case # Property Owner Violation Address Inspector
4.         101204 2010-28929 Kenneth E. Owens 1919 Perry Street Cody

*

Well, the more this stuff keeps happening, the more people realize how Gestapo-like (sorry in advance for breaking Godwin's Law on the 1st page of a thread!) some of these folks really are. What we're all witnessing with all the recent uproars, and DeSpain's resignation, and COJ's obvious and total disregard for anything the usual suspects say, is really the critical mass of an entire mindset getting hoisted on its own petard.

You just don't see this in Riverside (and trust me we have PLENTY of special uses in R'side), and I think it's generally recognized that in a period of turnaround any use at all is better than a vacant and decaying building. Chop that sucker up into as many apartments as you want, who really cares, if it means the thing will still be standing when the area around it improves enough for the inevitable sway of economics to take hold. When the rest of the place improves enough, the owner will sell out and it gets converted to a more appropriate use. That’s the natural course of events.

But at some point, a bunch of them decided they didn’t want to wait for nature to take its course, and that vacant lots were better than a historic building being used for any purpose that they didn't personally like. And, unfortunately, onto this bandwagon of bullshit jumped the executive director of what was supposed to be the neighborhood's historic preservation group. Flashing forward a decade, this more than anything is responsible for so much of Springfield being vacant lots.

If you really wanted to, you could dig up a code violation somewhere for something on pretty much any historic property anywhere in the city. That process is intended to protect public safety, not be used as a tool for harassment and personal agendas. When it gets perverted, as it has been by this group in Springfield, where a small group of yuppies and LOLA’s is calling code-enforcement every 2 minutes, the risk is that the property gets condemned and ultimately demolished. Then everybody loses.

These people have set the place back light-years. Each vacant lot represents a significant increase in the amount of investment required to make that parcel commercially or residentially useful. Instead of being able to drop $100k on renovations, now you’re looking at a $250k new build. The same holds true for commercial property. What these people have done is a travesty, and the more they keep ranting and raving, the more marginalized they will get. They did themselves in. So let them keep acting this way, it just shows everybody else how things are. Which, in the long run, is good.

Why does it matter if the people on either side were white? Why is race being brought in again? I haven't taken a poll or anything but last time I noticed, most if not all of the current tenants at 1919 Perry are also white.

Why the fuss?

Would anyone prefer a drunkard house to a sober house?

Quote from: buckethead on March 01, 2010, 06:30:17 PM
Why the fuss?

Would anyone prefer a drunkard house to a sober house?

that was my thought, too.

i'm also (partially) in agreement w/ chrisWUFgator about the empty lots--i'm sick ov seeïng them, and just as sick ov seeïng obviously new homes in what's supposed to be a historic area.

First, as Sheclown said, I didn’t even speak, but I guess I am the bane of all things Lola in Springfield. Of course that statement coming from a Lola was sort of laughable as they seem to be the Kings and Queens of misinformation.

And why was Jack Meeks so disappointed that the 3rd street property got taken off the agenda?  Does he and Mack have something planned for that spot on East 3rd?

Nvrenuf, I think since a very recent incident with a major SPAR Council supporter, there has been some amount of evidence that race does have something to do with it after all.

Zoo, are you saying you don't want anymore good neighbors?  Because, it seems that more of the actual neighbors of the sober houses have indicated that they are indeed good neighbors.  In fact, when you think about it, you are more likely to get a good neighbor with an well looked after sober house than a regular rental. Oh, and yes, we have opened some in the past - one of the guys has babysat the grandkid.…the answer to your last question.

And once again we get to hear the incorrect number of legal "special uses" and the fact that there is this elusive list of 16 illegal special uses.  As Sheclown and I have four legal rentals that I have a suspicion are on that list, then one potential house was taken off the agenda today and only one "illegal special use" was heard, and that also seems to have been found legal at this point, what, exactly, is this elusive list?  Is that  list ever going to be made public or is it still only for those select few that are “true believers”.  That is one way to make sure that the truth never comes out, keep it within the group that prays to make their desires of making us illegal comes true.  And is that truly illegal rooming house that is still being advertised on the Proton Therapy website on this “illegal rooming house” list?  Whoops. Sorry, I forgot that if you rent rooms illegally to the right “kind of people“, it’s OK.

It is past time for this nonsense to stop. Want a better Springfield?  Help Louise move and then get rid of the others who can’t seem to get it.  Let’s get some people involved with the local organizations that actually want to find out and know the truth and not some made up and prejudicial wish they may have. Then we all can finally sit down together and make some progress. 

or....

residents don't want halfway/sober/boarding/rooming houses opening up next to them. for various reasons.

you're gonna have to get rid of almost everyone if you want that to change.

Actually, FSU813, you seem to be trying to be part of the problem rather than the fix.  You can't see past the Lola opinions and misinformation and so are doomed to be a problem.  Have you talked to the actual neighbors of any of the sober houses (please note, I am talking sober houses, not illegal rooming houses here) ? Do you know how many there are?  Do you know were they are?  Have you seen this elusive list?  Are you ever going to get that illegal rooming house off the Proton Therapy’s website ...oh, I forgot, some laws don't matter much to you and hey, Proton patients are the right kind of people. Can you possibly get it that by talking and working together rather than just making stuff up and calling your local Lola or code enforcement that Springfield might actually be better off?  That when the truth actually gets out there that all will see that all of this hand wringing over the “illegal special uses” has been for nothing?  That that energy could have and should have been put towards keeping the historic houses and not helping code enforcement tear them down.  That an all inclusive Springfield Community is a much stronger and successful  community than that all exclusive one SPAR Council and the Lolas envision?

yes, yes. i know. i'm part of the problem.

in fact, anyone who doesn't want a sober/halfway/rooming/boarding/rehab house next to them is part of the problem.

and we're obvious wrong for thinking that way.

probably racist too, as has been implied mulitiple times.

no doubt elitists, that's for sure.

i can't form my own opinions, rather i'm fed info by a neighborhood organization and i regurgitate it.

and i make stuff up (lie) a lot too.

and none of your questions have been addressed/answered before.

think that covers it.

You are so right, FSU813, how could I have ever said otherwise. ::)

I will restate:

Quote
Can you possibly get it that by talking and working together rather than just making stuff up and calling your local Lola or code enforcement that Springfield might actually be better off?  That when the truth actually gets out there that all will see that all of this hand wringing over the “illegal special uses” has been for nothing?  That that energy could have and should have been put towards keeping the historic houses and not helping code enforcement tear them down.  That an all inclusive Springfield Community is a much stronger and successful  community than that all exclusive one SPAR Council and the Lolas envision?

Quote from: sheclown on March 01, 2010, 01:07:07 PM
Monday lunch time and I just got back from the Special Masters Hearing on "illegal" rooming houses.
The house on Perry Street had been cited as an “illegal rooming house” and was before the Special Masters a quasi-judicial hearing.

The house in question is a tri-plex which currently houses 10 people.

Are sober houses really the issue?  I personally have no problem with sober houses - in fact, I just bought a home next door to one that I have been told is well run with residents that have never caused any problems for the neighborhood.  I don't have any personal (or even second hand) knowledge of problems associated with the house on Perry Street.  However, the property appraiser's database states that the building has 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and 2800 square feet and that it sits on a lot that is 29 feet wide.  Sounds like it is not really suitable housing for 10 people.  I can certainly understand why owners of neighboring properties might not want the traffic (foot or otherwise) and noise associated with ten people living on a 29 foot wide strip of property.

MissFixIt:

The house in question has been operating this way for years.  It has had multiple inspections (for years) and deemed to be operating legally (for years).

This is not a new place.

Just how many problems have any of these sober houses caused? Have they been an ongoing problem, other than people just not wanting them on the same block, street or neighborhood? I'm curious if anyone has statistics on this.

I personally don't care for any residential housing that has a high turnover rate, which includes rentals, apartments, rooming houses, sober houses, etc., but that's just a personal opinion because so many of the people that live in them don't seem to take the same pride in being a good neighbor, in keeping the property well maintained and cleaned. This isn't to say that it includes all rentals or the others I listed, just those with a high turnover in occupants.

I would not and do not care if there's a rental, sober house, apartments, etc., that are good neighbors in that they keep the property well cared for and are not crime-related issues (drugs, etc.) I have no problem with a sober house that keeps a close watch over their residents, to ensure that they remain sober, that they aren't causing problems. But pretty much the same goes for landlords who rent to people who are problamatic to the neighbors well being.

So if there's not been a problem with illegal activity, with being loud and disorderly, etc., then why should it matter who is living next door to you, or on the same block, the same street, the same neighborhood? There are plenty of neighbors that have purchased and reside near where I do, that I'd love to see move away, and no, they aren't residents of a sober house or rentals.

If the houses in which these people are speaking against have been problems, then yes, by all means step up and do what you can to rectify the problem. I would think the first step would be to contact the owner/manager, etc. and discuss your concerns with them, most times an amicable solution can be reached.

QuoteOr should we all just go back to minding our own business and stop trying to tell people where and how they may legally live?

AMEN!

Mr. Gossip telling people to mind thier own business.

That's rich. =)

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on March 01, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

Quote from: buckethead on March 01, 2010, 06:30:17 PM
Why the fuss?

Would anyone prefer a drunkard house to a sober house?

that was my thought, too.

i'm also (partially) in agreement w/ chrisWUFgator about the empty lots--i'm sick ov seeïng them, and just as sick ov seeïng obviously new homes in what's supposed to be a historic area.

Would you rather see the lot empty or a brand new house being built?  The damage is done, the old house is gone, get over it.

Quote from: Miss Fixit on March 01, 2010, 09:32:00 PMHowever, the property appraiser's database states that the building has 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and 2800 square feet and that it sits on a lot that is 29 feet wide.  Sounds like it is not really suitable housing for 10 people.  I can certainly understand why owners of neighboring properties might not want the traffic (foot or otherwise) and noise associated with ten people living on a 29 foot wide strip of property.

I understand your logic, Miss Fixit, but the fact remains that the property is already zoned Multi-Family.  It does seem rather small for a triplex but in theory, three octo-Mom families could move in and it would be perfectly legal.  The zoning is already there.

what's the "landslide of 39"?   not familiar with that....

Quote from: stephendare on March 02, 2010, 10:59:41 AM
"Landslide of 39 people' talking about what the 'majority' of the neighborhood wants. ;)

LMFAO! Bwahahaaaaa...so true!

Quote from: Livein32206 on March 02, 2010, 07:52:19 AM
Just how many problems have any of these sober houses caused? Have they been an ongoing problem, other than people just not wanting them on the same block, street or neighborhood? I'm curious if anyone has statistics on this.

I can't give statistics, but can relate my personal experience with the ones located on Pearl. 

Once while walking my dog by the house right on the corner of 7th and Pearl, a man sitting on the porch made an especially lewd comment about my dog and me.  It was pretty disconcerting, so I chose to no longer pass the house on my walks or runs.  Overall not a huge deal, but I certainly didn't want to encouter that guy again.

In another incident, my husband befriended one of the residents from a different sober house that is between 7th and Pearl.  He wasn't allowed to stay in the house one night because he showed up drunk.  He then came to our house to see if he could stay with us.  We have children, so there was no way we could allow someone in that condition to stay in our home.  The guy then went on to steal several thousand dollars worth of equipment from a church downtown that had been trying to help him get back on his feet.

I am pretty ambivalent about whether or not there are boarding houses in Springfield.  There are definitely larger issues to address.  It's just that my personal experiences with them has been less than pleasant.

Landslice of 39, (they were the voters at SPAR), but that sure beats the multitude of 4 which showed up for the new organization called SHARP
Why do we keep beating this to death.

oh, i see. 39 people came to vote that day. that's where the # comes from. the other 120 don't count.... =)

glad you asked.

it depends. how many of those are property owners in the 'hood?

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 03:22:30 PM
glad you asked.

it depends. how many of those are property owners in the 'hood?

And here we are back to what pisses people off the most about SPAR, which is that if you don't live in that little 1sq mile radius, then your views don't count and you're not entitled to an opinion. All the business owners, landlords, investors, renters, and the people who frequent those businesses, etc., etc., etc., are just dismissed because they don't actually sleep there at night.

lucinda . Welcome to Metro Jacksonville.  When did these two incidences happen?  Is it only two in how many years that you lived here?  Are you aware that steps have been taken to do something with those that can not return to the halfway houses because they chose to use again?  Do you know that even then they can be helped only if they choose to return to the house at all, which many do not do, they just don’t bother to come home.  And one bad person who stole from a church …do you really believe that is truly representative?

Still have not heard from an actual neighbor of the houses that are deemed illegal by the Lolas.

QuoteFSU813: it depends. how many of those are property owners in the 'hood?

Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count.  Springfield needs the higher density that renters bring or the commercial places everyone says they want won’t be here.  Yet, a very vocal SPAR Council supporter says, as we have heard from many a Lola, that unless you own, you do not count.

Then if you own a home or business here, but do not live here, you also do not count.

This is the mentality that begets the polices that will guarantee the ultimate failure of Springfield if they continue.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 01, 2010, 08:07:54 PM
or....

residents don't want halfway/sober/boarding/rooming houses opening up next to them. for various reasons.

you're gonna have to get rid of almost everyone if you want that to change.

I know I would be fairly pissed off if one opened next to me, or even close to me.
btw can I come to some of these meetings for entertainment? These sound fun to go and watch.

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

eh if someones place of residency is that area they have just as much right to have a say as anyone as they contribute to the local economy just like anyone else that lives there

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

FSU, I must respectfully disagree.  As a landlord, I have had tenants who rented the same home for 10 or more years - and who took good care of my property and made a sigificant contribution to their neighborhood.  SPAR should be reaching out to renters and asking them to become active members - both San Marco Preservation and RAP have actively and successfully solicited renters as members.  Not everyone who has the means to own real property chooses to do so, and just because someone hasn't accumulated a downpayment or earned a credit rating that will qualify them for a mortgage doesn't mean they can't be an asset to the neighborhood in which they reside.  They eat at local restaurants, shop at local businesses, send their children to local schools.  Renters shoud be respected and included.

Quote from: fsu813"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

That's pretty ignorant, let alone arrogant to say that someone who rents does not have a stake in the neighborhood. It also reflects your ignorance as to whether renters care and work towards the betterment of the neighborhood in which they live. There's so many reasons as to why people opt to rent, none of which has a thing to do with whether they have a stake in their community or not. Your better than thou attitude reflects the very attitude that is detrimental towards anyone who rents, assuming that property owners are the only ones that care, that give of themselves, their money and efforts into the community in which they live and are very much a part of.

There are people in this neighborhood that rent and have been more active in this neighborhood and have given more than people such as yourself would ever know, because you seem to come off with an impression that those who rent are less than yourself. This is the very kind of attitude that's the cancer of a good neighborhood, filled with good people, but pampas attitudes such as yours seem to consider those people less than acceptable. Which clearly reflects that you don't know squat.

There are people who rent that are outstanding, hard working, community involved and driven. Just as there are property owners who are not.

There are people who rent that are outstanding, hard working, community involved and driven. Just as there are property owners who are not.

_this just needed to be posted again, and again, and again -although I fear it falls on deaf ears!

Have to agree with you on that, Uptown Girl....it's clear that there are those who just want to feel more superior, even though they are not.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin what that statement. To quote another, "That's pretty ignorant, let alone arrogant to say that someone who rents does not have a stake in the neighborhood." Arrogant and ignorant don't even begin to describe such a view. Again, quoting another "This is the very kind of attitude that's the cancer of a good neighborhood, filled with good people, but pampas attitudes such as yours seem to consider those people less than acceptable." How true, such views are a cancer that destroys the very fabric of a community.

What makes you think that you're any better because you own the property in which you live, than someone who rents? There are renters that care very deeply about what goes on and work towards making their neighborhood a better one. There's also many property owners who don't give a hoot about what happens, and don't put forth any money or effort into the neighborhood. So just where and how do you decide who would be an acceptable exception? And who are you (or those of like-minded views) to even make such a judgment?

I know many who rent here in Springfield, who have been here for many years, and every one of those neighbors are very civic minded. Some have spent their own money to make improvements to the house and/or apartment they rent. They show up and work at community clean ups. Some have been paid members of SPAR and other neighborhood groups, and yet there's folks like you, that feel they shouldn't have a say in what happens in their own neighborhood. That they don't have a stake in their neighborhood.

That they don't pay property taxes, and I would imagine that you'd lump in those fees too. Have you ever stopped to think (which clearly with statements as you've made, you haven't or don't care) that they do pay those taxes. Some are paid indirectly through their rent and some pay the fees as part of their rental agreement.

These renters also spend their money at neighborhood establishments, like Uptown, Three Layers and many others, yet their input isn't valid or wanted, according to you. I also find it ironic that SPAR doesn't seem to have a problem with taking their money for membership, which then gives them voting power and a say in what happens in the neighborhood. Yet there are people like yourself, who entitle themselves to stand in judgment and deem renters unacceptable and un-entitled to be part of the community in which the live, spend their money, their time and efforts.

The flagrant arrogance of such views is sickening, (and quoting again) and the "cancer" of a healthy community.

To quote from Dr. Seuss:

"a person's a person no matter how small."

Quote from: sheclown on March 03, 2010, 07:56:12 AM
To quote from Dr. Seuss:

"a person's a person no matter how small."

How true, and appropriate timing:  Dr. Seuss' birthday is this week.

That said, wouldn't it be nice if we could all rise above name calling on these forums and be the bigger person when we are offended - it's really not necessary to blast everyone whose opinion you disagree with, no matter how offensive or ridiculous their opinion may seem.  Just reasonably and rationally state your own case and hopefully common sense will ultimately prevail!

I'm now prepared to be blasted myself for being a naive, pollyanna-ish idiot!!  ;)

Likewise, it would be nice if community leaders were in place who didn't actively attack anyone whose opinion they disagreed with (using tax payer money to do it, I might add).

Perhaps it will happen now.  

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Um...property ownership is all that matters?  I guess we just leave all the decisions to Petra, the banks, and a few other big players.  Oh, and you do understand that would include the sober houses - the owners of those houses each have a lot more property than you or I do.

We do not build a diverse neighborhood by creating a two-tiered system of landed gentry and serfs.   No.  That's not my Springfield.  No sir.

Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

gee whiz.

well, now that my comments were taken out of context.........(suprise)

- Miss Fixit,

i said there are always exceptions, of course. those that have lived in the neighborhood for a long time & thus do have a vested stake in the 'hood would be an example of that.

of course the vast majority of renters do NOT fall in this catagory. anyone care to guess what the renter turnover rate / length of stay is in the neighborhood?

also, thank you for a reasonable response. you may disagree, like everyone does from time to time, but the faux outrage & jumping to conclusions displayed by some others is not necessary or becoming. kind disagreements are always better than harsh ones.

- Springfielder,

not that this suprises me, but you've managed to contort "renters shouldn't have as much say as property owners on the future of a neighborhood" to "property owners are better than renters". which is not what I said at all. please get that straight before you lay out another negative attack job, thanks. =P

- uptown,

like i said in the orginal post, of course there are always exceptions. but the vast majority of renters don't fall under the catagory you described.

- livin32206,

again, that's not what i said at all. your entire 5 paragraph response is based on something that was not said. see my comments to Springfielder.

- hoop lady,

yes, i understand that banks & llc's would have a greater say than an average renter. and that's not ideal, iether. but, like i said...they have an investment. a renter can be here today, gone tomorrow....and that's often the case with the vast majority of renters in the neighborhood. 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, whatever. the majority won't be here for very long, they are just passing through in essence.  And they do not put effort forth improving the neighborhood.

of course there are exceptions, like i said in my original post, but i'm speaking to the rule rather than the exception.

i dread the day when temporary residents decide what's best for the 'hood...then leave. of course, chances are slim to none that that would ever happen, as relatively few choose to get involved in anything. which is thier choice.

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

so since further clarification is never need, i supposed you'll give up your habit of editing and reediting a large percantge of your posts....



just seems like some posters need a continuing education course in reading comp.

and a course on how to disagree without being disagreeable wouldn't hurt either.

QuoteZoo, my dear, Angi's houses were in operation before YOU moved into the neighborhood.

As were a lot of other things, like drug houses and operations, prostitution rings and bordellos, guns, guns and more guns, historic homes that had been allowed to deteriorate so badly they couldn't be given away to be restored, and fewer businesses that served, rather than preyed, on the residents of the area. Do you think there is any correlation b/w what was in the area before 2002, and "businesses" like yours and Angi's that were also here? Hmmmm.....

Argue 'til you're blue in the face that increasing the concentration (MORE) of people without incomes, and with dependency problems or mental illnesses, is positive for a community. Show me ONE STUDY corroborating that concentrating these groups in an area already lacking economic diversity is helpful to them or the area!!!

The economic balance in Springfield has been way out of whack for a long time -- 92% low-income with many either having no/little un-subsidized income at all, or enjoying the unreported, illegal income received from preying on challenged groups. This due in large part to racism, the automobile, slimy landlords, criminal opportunists, and even some non-profits and public policymakers who erroneously believed they were helping by segregating. In Springfield this imbalance is changing, now ~74% low income, and whether you're informed enough to realize it or not, that will ultimately help those who have been here all along that are economically challenged.

- Promoting Neighborhood Diversity: Benefits, Barriers and Strategies, an Urban Institute publication "summarizes the substantial body of evidence that residential segregation undermines the well-being of individuals, communities, and American society as a whole." Feel free to dig deeper into the evidence at: http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html.

- Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation, also an Urban Institute publication, is primarily focused on public housing, but is clear that positively transforming public housing "has focused on de-concentrating poverty." Read more at: http://www.urban.org/publications/211518.html.

These pubs also explain why anyone who supports economic integration in Springfield -- which means continuing to mix more economically successful HHs with the less economically successful, and, yes, primarily, African-American population -- gets called racist. Throughout U.S. urban centers' history, and even more so in the SE, race and low-socioeconomic status are inextricably tied. Hence the bogus, "if you want diversity in economics, you must be anti-black," some post-ers wrongly infer and implicate.

More balanced economics means more businesses, creating more entry-level jobs, that will serve (rather than prey on) the entire community. More no/low-income HHs = fewer businesses, jobs and brass rings for economically challenged residents to grab.

Grandfathered in is fine with me. New, continued concentration -- Springfield as "path-of-least-resistance dumping ground" -- is not. Informed, NOMIMBY, and proud of it. And please don't bother responding to me; but feel free to argue with the experts at the Urban Institute, Brookings, etc. instead...

Zoo brings up a good point...Hey anyone in Springfield want to buy a pistol or 8? Sell it to you cheep ;D

Well, I just want to know who the most informed poster is?

You really have to ask? Everyone already knows who Stephen thinks it is...

Those idiots at Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Institute and the Urban Institute should all be fired so they can hire him!

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow.

A: Unbelievably snotty thing to say/think.

B: What's next? Condo owners have no say? If somebody has an apartment building but doesn't live there, they have no say? (well I can personally vouch for that being the case) Someone has a business, but doesn't live there, they have no say? If that business sells a flavor of cupcakes you don't like, they have no say? Who said you guys get to appoint who can say anything in the first place?

You and SPAR just slice and dice the numbers any way you can, to narrow down the people who are 'allowed' to have an opinion on anything to a group that includes nothing more than yourselves and those who agree with you. I know many renters who've been in Springfield longer than any of you have, what gives you the right to exclude them from anything?

(yawn) no, chris. that not what was stated.

you wasted 2 paragraphs arguing something that was never said nor inferred.

re-read the thread please.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 03, 2010, 10:46:25 AM

just seems like some posters need a continuing education course in reading comp.

and a course on how to disagree without being disagreeable wouldn't hurt either.

&

Quote from: fsu813 on March 03, 2010, 10:35:36 AM

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

Quote from: fsu813

- Springfielder,

not that this suprises me, but you've managed to contort "renters shouldn't have as much say as property owners on the future of a neighborhood" to "property owners are better than renters". which is not what I said at all. please get that straight before you lay out another negative attack job, thanks. =P

- uptown,

like i said in the orginal post, of course there are always exceptions. but the vast majority of renters don't fall under the catagory you described.

- livin32206,

again, that's not what i said at all. your entire 5 paragraph response is based on something that was not said. see my comments to Springfielder.

of course there are exceptions, like i said in my original post, but i'm speaking to the rule rather than the exception.

i dread the day when temporary residents decide what's best for the 'hood...then leave. of course, chances are slim to none that that would ever happen, as relatively few choose to get involved in anything. which is thier choice.

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

Funny, that's not what you said....oh, yes you did

Quote"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

QuoteRight off the bat, you clearly state that it should be property owners, period. So just how is that misunderstood? Then you go on to say that renters are here today, gone tomorrow, but of course there's exceptions. Just how was that misunderstood.

The fact is, you stated your opinion, which is very clearly understood. It doesn't matter how long my response is/was, your arrogant comments pretty much needed a response. It's only when such ignorance is overlooked, that it's allowed to continue. So don't try to back track now by saying that's not what you said, because you did say it and said it rather clearly.

It absolutely amazes me at how fired-up some of you folks can be over a fact.  Renters DO NOT have the same vested financial stake in a neighborhood that a property OWNER in that same neighborhood does.  Whether you like it or not, that is the truth.  Why?  Because a renter pays no property taxes.  A renter is not subject to HOA or other like-fees associated with the upkeep of a neighborhood.  A renter has absolutely no contracutal obligation to pay on the mortgage associated with the property, the taxes, or the insurance.  A renter is exactly what is the definition:  Someone who is paying a fee for the temporary use of goods or services.  If a group, by definition, is to be in a place for a limited time period, why in the world would they have equal say in a matter that others have vested in PERMANANTLY???  And, to answer this question:

Quote from: braeburn on March 03, 2010, 10:31:51 AM
Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

I would hope after reading what you've read in my post above, this would be answered.  Being in "posession" of something, doesn't mean it belongs to you or that you have taken the appropriate measures to "own" it.  You, as a renter, are in posession of the property and have the right to dwell there based on the contract between yourself and the OWNER.  The owner of the property is allowing you use of the property in exchange for money or some other agreement between the two of you.  If the owner of the property defaults on his/her agreement with the bank that holds the mortgage, guess who's out of a home?  Yup, YOU are.  You have absolutely no right to that house regardless of how long you lived in it because your name is not on the deed.  You also have no right to make changes to the property without the permission of the owner.  If you can't paint the house, replace broken siding or windows, do anything to make the place you're living in contribute to the aestheic of the neighborhood, how can you even BEGIN to speak to what's in the best interest of the owners??That, my friend, is the difference. 

And to you, FSU813...Really????  Really.  Ok, since I must, here it is....

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 03, 2010, 12:06:45 PM

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow.

A: Unbelievably snotty thing to say/think.

B: What's next? Condo owners have no say? If somebody has an apartment building but doesn't live there, they have no say? (well I can personally vouch for that being the case) Someone has a business, but doesn't live there, they have no say? If that business sells a flavor of cupcakes you don't like, they have no say? Who said you guys get to appoint who can say anything in the first place?

You and SPAR just slice and dice the numbers any way you can, to narrow down the people who are 'allowed' to have an opinion on anything to a group that includes nothing more than yourselves and those who agree with you. I know many renters who've been in Springfield longer than any of you have, what gives you the right to exclude them from anything?

1.  Condo Owners - The term "owner" answers your own question.  They OWN property, therefore they are not a renter, and the comment does not apply.

2.  Apartment Building Owner - Again...OWNER.  This person is what they call in the business, an "investor."  They OWN an investment property.  It's understood they don't live in it, but they do, OWN it.  Again, the comment referenced people who don't OWN property, aka RENTERs.

3.  Hmm...don't know a lot of people that live in their businesses, but to each his own I guess.  Anywho, again, provided this business owner is indeed an OWNER, then the comment doesn't apply.  Also, typically, a business generates revenue to a neighborhood that couldn't otherwise be acheived without it, and therefore falls under a different classification than a resident.  A business owner owns his/her business and is not required to purchase or mortgage a property in order to sell goods or services because it's the business and those goods services that they wholly own.  I've never met someone who RENTED the right to a business.

4.  The cupcake thing.  I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  If you are a customer and you walk into a cupcake shop to buy a cupcake, you don't yet own anything.  If you buy said cupcake, you now own it.  If you don't like the cupcake, you have every right to tell the OWNER you don't like it and the owner has every right to tell you to leave and never come back again.  Is it good business?  Probably not, but that's his/her right and yours as well.  If you asking whether the owner of the cupcake shop should have a say in things neighborhood related, see response #3.  If you're asking whether the buyer of said cupcakes should have a say in things neighborhood related, well, I'd have to ask if that customer lives and owns property in the neighborhood.  If they are a resident of D.C. spending the weekend here, why would you want that person making decisions about a place they neither know about nor have any financial interest??  You were really reaching with this comment.

Btw, I am a renter and have also OWNED several homes.

"It absolutely amazes me at how fired-up some of you folks can be over a fact.  Renters DO NOT have the same vested financial stake in a neighborhood that a property OWNER in that same neighborhood does.  Whether you like it or not, that is the truth."

- manufactured outrage & defying common sense is pretty common 'round these parts, unfortunately.




"Its a crazy argument.  not worth wasting the time on.  Its source (surprisingly) is solely from the small group of the 'homeowners' who are trying to justify the types of decisions that have nothing to do with their 'homeownership'."

- actually, the source was me individually. i brought this up, prompted by your question. and you don't want to waste your time on it, because you know it's true. and there's nothing exceptionally contrversial about it.




"And even so, the 60 'homeowing' individuals or families..."

- add 100 to that number.

my wife isn't currently a member actually, though i think she will be soon.

ya know, i don't recall the answer to your question. check back later and i'll have it. pretty darn sure it's memberships, not individuals. we'll see.

Having taken several graduate level courses on community development, it is widely accepted that renters are not as likely to become engaged in community affairs as homeowners. That isn't to say that their opinions mean nothing, just that it may skew down SPAR's membership numbers in relation to total population. Go ask MetroNorth, Northwest Jax CDC, and Allison at ONH how hard is to engage a significant amount of residents in their communities.

Like second pancake said above, generally renters do not have the same vested interests in the long term welfare of a community. I'm sure there are quite a few who have rented here their whole life and have a great affinity for the area, but for every one of those there are probably a few who know they will only be here for the short term. I had a nice talk with a guy that was staying in a rooming/boarding house near me recently. Nice guy who was down on his luck and was trying to sell me a space heater that a friend "gave him". He didn't know much about the area and was just staying here for a few weeks till he could get enough money to go to Arlington. There's no way that you can say that a short term renter like that has the same vested interest in Springfield as does a homeowner. By the same token the long term renters and those who strive to one day own a home in Springfield, do need to be engaged and are just as vital to the area as homeowners.

I've rented places at the beach and in the inter coastal area for the past 4 years and I never once attended a community meeting, or cared about my dogs damaging the carpet and digging up the yard, but I sure as heck do now that I own a home. That same parallel can be drawn to renters at the community wide level. They are less likely to join attend a community cleanup, join an organization, etc.

Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2010, 02:02:53 PM

Quote from: CityLife on March 03, 2010, 01:51:21 PM
Having taken several graduate level courses on community development, it is widely accepted that renters are not as likely to become engaged in community affairs as homeowners. That isn't to say that their opinions mean nothing, just that it may skew down SPAR's membership numbers in relation to total population. Go ask MetroNorth, Northwest Jax CDC, and Allison at ONH how hard is to engage a significant amount of residents in their communities.

Like second pancake said above, generally renters do not have the same vested interests in the long term welfare of a community. I'm sure there are quite a few who have rented here their whole life and have a great affinity for the area, but for every one of those there are probably a few who know they will only be here for the short term. I had a nice talk with a guy that was staying in a rooming/boarding house near me recently. Nice guy who was down on his luck and was trying to sell me a space heater that a friend "gave him". He didn't know much about the area and was just staying here for a few weeks till he could get enough money to go to Arlington. There's no way that you can say that a short term renter like that has the same vested interest in Springfield as does a homeowner. By the same token the long term renters and those who strive to one day own a home in Springfield, do need to be engaged and are just as vital to the area as homeowners.

I've rented places at the beach and in the inter coastal area for the past 4 years and I never once attended a community meeting, or cared about my dogs damaging the carpet and digging up the yard, but I sure as heck do now that I own a home. That same parallel can be drawn to renters at the community wide level. They are less likely to join attend a community cleanup, join an organization, etc.

meh.  graduate level courses arent likely to take into account the atypical renters who are drawn to historic districts.

I think you may be confusing 'renters' with a sub group called 'students'.

In any case, the United States kindof moved past that a while ago. 

Many of the springfield 'homeowners' were tax subsidized and artifically inflated by speculators anyways.

Different ballgame.

Ivory tower thinkers don't take into account a lot of things. I would agree that renters in urban historic districts may differ from their counterparts, but don't think that changes that renters in Springfield aren't as engaged as homeowners. I would be willing to bet that if you went through the sign in sheet of the last community cleanup that 75%+ are homeowners even though the district probably has a higher proportion of renters to homeowners.

Regardless of who picks up more trash, the bottom line is that all citizens of (fill in the blank here, USA, Florida, COJ, Springfield) deserve recognition, consideration, and representation by the leaders of (fill in the blank here). 

To say anything else is pretty darn horrid.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 03, 2010, 01:07:13 PM
my wife isn't currently a member actually, though i think she will be soon.

I guess it will be the "landslide of 40" then...ROFL

Quote from: braeburn on March 03, 2010, 10:31:51 AM
Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

For one thing, the renters aren't "upside down" in their homes -- they probably have more expendable income to spend in the neighborhood as a result. :D

Not that it's going to make any difference to you, Stephen, but for the rest of the folks that read this and take it as gospel, I have to make a correction to your comment....

Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2010, 12:57:35 PM
ok.

1.  there is no HOA in springfield.

2.  Most of the land that the new homes are built on was either donated land or bought at the 5k per lot price with the help of the city, therefore it is tax subsidized.

3.  At what point is a homeowner a homeowner?  When they pay off the bank, I would assume.  Many of the alleged 'homeowners' who were screaming about their right to control the neighborhoods a few years ago got foreclosed on.  Their renters, the people who actually live there, are still in the buildings.

Its a crazy argument.  not worth wasting the time on.  Its source (surprisingly) is solely from the small group of the 'homeowners' who are trying to justify the types of decisions that have nothing to do with their 'homeownership'.

And even so, the 60 'homeowing' individuals or families associated with SPAR are still in the great minority of the neighborhood.

Which has boiled down to the Landslide of 39 group.

3.  I am in the mortgage industry...I know mortgages and banking like the back of my hand.  A bank is an investor.  A homeowner becomes a "homeowner" the moment they sign the promissory note and take ownership (this is how it is worded in the legal-binding documents) of that property.  The bank is merely LENDING the money to allow the person to purchase the home.  The home is collateral used to secure that investment that the bank made.  It's no different then you asking a friend to loan you $10,000 to go buy a car with the written promise that you will pay him back and if not, he gets the car.  He doesn't own the car, but he has invested in it and WILL own it if you don't pay.  Now, if you really want to get into details we could go on and on about mortgage-back securities and the housing bubble and the "speculation" you mention, but it's not really relevant to the topic of conversation.

And as far as the renters living in properties that have been foreclosed on.  Big negatory on that one.  When a property goes into foreclosure, the owner has up until the date of sale to make good on the back payments or enter into a loss mitigation workout with the lender. If they fail to do so, in the state of FL, the property is sold at auction to the highest bidder.  Usually, the lender bids in full on the property taking full ownership so that they can market the property as a Real-Estate-Owned (REO) property where they have the best chance of recooping their loss.  That is when the bank officially OWNS the property.  Anyone living in the home is evicted long before that event takes place.  While there are new laws under the Obama plan that allow a renter to stay into the home past the previously allotted time limits under foreclosure, they do not get to stay in the property indefinitely.  They are served with notice of eviction and have 30-60 days to vacate.  If they don't, the sherriff will put them out. 

It's usually around 60 days from the time a Notice of Foreclosure is posted at the courthouse (how it's done in FL), before the sale takes place.  It's during this time period that eviction proceedings are in the works.  If at the time of sale, there is still someone in the property and the bank successfully wins the bid, they will be removed right then and there.  So, if you know renters that are living in foreclosed properties, the foreclosure either has been reinstated (payments paid in full or negotiated workout in place), or those renters will be finding a new place to live pretty darn soon.

Quote from: second_pancake on March 03, 2010, 02:56:24 PM
And as far as the renters living in properties that have been foreclosed on.  Big negatory on that one.  When a property goes into foreclosure, the owner has up until the date of sale to make good on the back payments or enter into a loss mitigation workout with the lender. If they fail to do so, in the state of FL, the property is sold at auction to the highest bidder.  Usually, the lender bids in full on the property taking full ownership so that they can market the property as a Real-Estate-Owned (REO) property where they have the best chance of recooping their loss.  That is when the bank officially OWNS the property.  Anyone living in the home is evicted long before that event takes place.  While there are new laws under the Obama plan that allow a renter to stay into the home past the previously allotted time limits under foreclosure, they do not get to stay in the property indefinitely.  They are served with notice of eviction and have 30-60 days to vacate.  If they don't, the sherriff will put them out. 

It's usually around 60 days from the time a Notice of Foreclosure is posted at the courthouse (how it's done in FL), before the sale takes place.  It's during this time period that eviction proceedings are in the works.  If at the time of sale, there is still someone in the property and the bank successfully wins the bid, they will be removed right then and there.  So, if you know renters that are living in foreclosed properties, the foreclosure either has been reinstated (payments paid in full or negotiated workout in place), or those renters will be finding a new place to live pretty darn soon.

You gotta be kidding me on the claim that nobody whose house was foreclosed still lives there, right? Even assuming the foreclosure and judicial sale goes unchallenged, the process can take a year or longer. It takes forever and a day just to get a hearing in circuit court here anymore. They're flooded with these. Then the bank would still have to obtain a writ of possession and send a representative out with a Sheriff's deputy to actually evict the former homeowner if they are still in the property. There is no automatic process, someone has to actually go and do it.

The banks have more foreclosed properties than they can digest at present, and it could potentially be years before this actually occurs. Some banks have even decided it is better to ignore it than to have the property vacant and suffer further loss by vandalism or theft. There are multitudes of people at all stages of the process still living in homes on which they haven't made a single payment in years. I'm really scratching my head on this one, my guess is you must not follow the real estate market very closely, or at least not recently.

Why did Paul Hout tell the Prez of the SIAWC that she could not attend a meeting of a group (the garden club) which is a committee of the SIAWC?

Not arguing, Stephen, I'm merely stating facts that were left out in the conversation.  As I said, which I suspect you hardly read since it only took you all of 4 seconds to post your reply, the folks living in those foreclosed properties won't be there for long regardless of how "delightful" they are. Sad, but factual.

The weight you put on someone's input to neighborhood changes/revitalization is totally on a homeowner and that is not reduced because of that homeowner's inability to pay on a loan.  Again, we're talking about a lease of 6 months - a year at a time.  Mortgages are taken in terms of 15 years, and for a while, were up to 60 years.  An owner is a owner and a renter is a renter, you can't dispute the definitions of those words...it is what it is...A=A.

In Jacksonville over 44% of the homeowners are currently in a negative equity position through absolutely no fault of their own.  Typically, when someone is upside-down 70k or more, they walk.  The amount of time it takes for someone to build that kind of equity back up continually paying on their homes versus them taking their monthly mortgage payment and investing it into another investment fund is much longer.  The property owner walks and let's the home get foreclosed on.  To your point, you think that because someone had all intention of living in a community for a significant period of their life, invested in that community, and the economy worked against them, we should equate them to that of a life-long renter who has never saved enough money to buy a home, or never wanted to because they are perfectly content having no responsibility for a home???  Talk about "bunk."  Now, if what you're saying is that these folks no longer have money in the neighborhood because they're homes were foreclosed and sold REO, and yet they show up to the meetings and bitch and moan about what to do or not to do, then I agree, they don't have a say any longer because they no longer have an investment there.

Springfield needs help.  It would be nice if everyone felt about Springfield the way those that have financially invested in it do.  It would be nice if the folks that have rented and are renting in Springfield would put their money where their mouth is and start making the same investment.  Unfortunately, and getting back to the original reason for this topic having been posted, the gal who is the owner of property is running a business in a residential area for the purposes of housing drug-addicts and alcoholics trying to get clean.  She is not using the property as a standard rental, but a business that is bringing less-than-desireable people to the area.  She is working against what all those homeowners having invested in the area are trying to accomplish...rid the area of drug-addicts, alcoholics, and other folks with issues that are better handled through a professional, licensed,  addict treament center.  I'm sure that wasn't her intention ( I don't know her so can't say, just assuming she's not evil, lol), but that is the result.  If she wants to help these folks, then she needs to get the proper approvals and permits to have this type of facility, as well as have a structure that will support them.  And by doing so, the residents will be given a forum to discuss her proposal to house the folks in the area and then EVERYONE can voice their opposition or support.  No one said they can't choose to say what they (renters) want about the community they live in, just that if it's going to carry any water, they need to show that they have a vested interest in the community and usually that's done through the payment of property taxes....if someone doesn't believe in a community they usually don't buy into it.

 

Quote from: second_pancake on March 03, 2010, 03:39:03 PM
To your point, you think that because someone had all intention of living in a community for a significant period of their life, invested in that community, and the economy worked against them, we should equate them to that of a life-long renter who has never saved enough money to buy a home, or never wanted to because they are perfectly content having no responsibility for a home??? 

I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. Unless you live somewhere other than Florida, the sad truth is that most of the renters are probably better off financially for having rented instead of buying, after this bloodbath of the past couple years. Half the state carries negative equity. How is the guy who owes $100k more than a property is worth somehow smarter, or a better financial planner, than the guy who rents and owes nothing?

I'm all for owning, at least in the long-term view of things (this too shall pass right?), but surely you have to see the palmetto bug in your ointment? Your characterization doesn't make much sense, and probably won't hold true again for many more years. I know lots of people who could buy if they wanted, but aren't interested in catching a falling knife. Real estate isn't a biotech stock, it doesn't suddenly increase in value 1000%. It's not like there isn't plenty of time to get on that train before it leaves the station.

I don't see how you can randomly exclude people who rent in Springfield from having a say in the direction of the neighborhood. If they're stepping up to the plate to participate, then hasn't any argument about whether they've taken an interest in the neighborhood already flown out the window?

Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2010, 03:35:01 PM

Quote from: nvrenuf on March 03, 2010, 03:31:32 PM
Why did Paul Hout tell the Prez of the SIAWC that she could not attend a meeting of a group (the garden club) which is a committee of the SIAWC?

are you freaking serious?

Some of these people have plain out lost their minds.

she asked a question.  is that your response? if so, did you read the question?

Guys, you are completely missing the point.  Those renters are renting the homes from a homeowner, are they not?  Where is that homeowner?  Do they not care about Springfield?  That is what I'm saying.  THOSE are the folks that carry more weight...not that the renters don't have a say as I stated in my previous post.

Stephen, yes, irresponsibility was the issue, however it's not all the folks that went out and took mortgages they couldn't afford.  When I say over 44% of the homeowners in Jax have negative equity, those are the folks that are paying on their homes.  Those are the folks that knew what they were getting into and the economy worked against them.  At some point they will make a business decision to either stay invested in that property or they will cut their losses and walk and thus become a renter.  Yes, my point would be moot, Chris, if no one owned homes anymore.  But the fact that we're debating over renters rights demands that there are homeowners...how could they rent a home if no one owned it?

When the entirety of Springfield exists of empty homes all for sale as REO properties, then we'll talk, but while there are still renters, there are homeowners, and it's those folks, IMO exclusively that should be making decisions as to what happens to their investment.

Stephen...oh, Stephen....again, I know mortgages.  The value of a home is not in what a property assessor (especially in the state of FL) dictates the taxable value of the property is.  The value is based on the market...comparable properties, and what they have statiscically sold for.  You can not convince me, because I have seen the numbers, that ANYONE in Springfield paid 450k for a home that had a Broker's Price Opinion (market value) of 80k.  Now, if you were to tell me that 4-5 years ago someone bought a house in Springfield for 450k and TODAY it's market value is 80k, then yes, that is absolutely true which is what I said...it is one of the 44% of the homes that is undervalued through absolutely no fault of the person that bought it.  And the fact of the matter is, again, (going back to what I said earlier ) if someone made that stupid decision in your example...to pay more than market value for a property in a declining market, then more than likely, they no longer own the home, or they are renting the property hoping for the market to turn so they can recoup their loss.  What's wrong with that?  Renters may be a better financial position right now, but they don't have their money in the market.  It's very easy to tell someone else what to do with their neighborhood and their investments when you don't have skin in the game.  I really don't know how anyone could disagree with that.  All you want to discuss is how irresposible all of these homeowner's are when your knowledge of the mortgage industry is based on what you've read in the newspaper or what neighbors have told you is happening with their homes and why.  I work it...I live it...I breathe it.  There is culpubility on both the banks and the homeowners.  I said it before and I'll say it again, when Springfield, or any other city for that matter, has no renters and just vacant properties waiting to be sold by the banks, then you have a community of your so-called "smart" homeowners homeless that made a business decision to invest their money outside of the housing market, and we'll sit down and talk about who should be deciding what.

We can disagree all we want.  I don't live in Springfield.  I don't own a home in Springfield...in fact I don't own a home anymore period.  I rent.  I can voice my opinion however I feel, but I have no claim to stake in that neighborhood.  You should just be more careful when quoting numbers and scenarios when it comes to the housing market.  I think facts should remain fact and opinion, opinion.  I am not on here to insult people or make snide remarks or try and posture myself through the use of cutting remarks or the analyzation and twisting of one's words.  I am stating my opinion on the subject as it was presented, and backing-up that opinion with facts.  I deal with mortgage issues on a daily basis and frankly this is just tiring.  I'm done now.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

I respectfully call bullshit on this Springfield property owner nonsense.

Everyone who lives in Jacksonville has a stake in Springfield, whether they know it or not, and whether they rent or own their homes. Any neighborhood full of run-down, empty buildings and vacant lots reflects poorly on the entire city.

For the record, I happen to be a property owner. My property is in Arlington, but my taxes go to THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, not just Arlington; and I have just as much right to a say in what goes on in Springfield as these uppity newcomers.

I was born and raised in Jacksonville, and feel a sense of ownership towards the city as a whole, but I admit a special affection for the historic districts (San Marco, Riverside, Springfield) because I have lived, worked, played and shopped in all of them.

Yes, yes, Springfield is a historic district, and the architecture and character of the neighborhood should be preserved. However, preservation does NOT mean dialing it back 100 years and reducing it to a boring enclave of wealthy white people.

Recent transplants from... Burbank or somewhere who want to tell life-long residents of Springfield how to live their lives, run their businesses, and treat their less fortunate neighbors deserve to be kneecapped with an aluminum baseball bat.

Interesting stuff, these new posters screaming about "white people" messing up Springfield. Im shocked... not really.

White people screw up everything, Dan.  Don't you know that.

Quote from: sheclownRegardless of who picks up more trash, the bottom line is that all citizens of (fill in the blank here, USA, Florida, COJ, Springfield) deserve recognition, consideration, and representation by the leaders of (fill in the blank here). 

To say anything else is pretty darn horrid.

Thank you!

And what gets me, even though the renters aren't paying the property taxes directly, they do so indirectly through their rent. As I've stated before, many of the renters I know of, also pay the new fees separately to the landlord.

For those that are of the mindset that renters don't have the same vested interest in the neighborhood in which they live, spend their money, work with and participate with the community...I suppose in your eyes, they're still substandard folks. Most of the people I know that rent, have lived in the same houses for well over 10, 15, 20 years. Some have and are members of spar, some are block captains and also members of other organizations within the neighborhood. But of course, none of that matters since they don't own and merely rent...ignoring the fact that the cost of property taxes are passed onto them via their rent. They pay utilities, they shop in the neighborhood, they support neighborhood functions...but alas, they're just renters and shouldn't be included in the same category as property owners with as much say in what happens in their neighborhood.

The entitle-list few that feel that way are indeed, what creates the divide between neighbors, with an attempt to exclude

Springfielder, renters don't pay property taxes unless their landlord actually uses the rent to pay the escrowed mortage or property taxes themselves.  Renters have no control over how their money is applied.  Again, not excluding anyone since I am also a renter, just stating fact.

Some comments:

First, the average renter technically pays more property tax than the average live-in home owner.  Always. Unless, of course, the landlord likes to lose money and charges less than the actually cost of ownership.  If paying the taxes is what gives one the 'right" to have a say in THEIR community, then the renters could be said to have more of a right than the other owners.

second_pancake, before you post about a sober house again and what should and should not be done, you need to go do some research. This is not a licensed facility and it does not need to be. It is a rental that caters to those in recovery.  A large difference and perhaps even better than that treatment center.

Anyone who feels that a sober house is bad because it brings in the wrong kind of people needs to go learn the facts and report back to us.  You really have no idea of what you are trying to talk about here.

Anyone who really believes that race plays no part in any of this also needs to wake up.

I do not mean to be nasty here, but some of you really do need a reality check.  The studies that helped form the historic districts even stated that local orgs should include renters in the mix of the decision making.  Which is why the successful HSCC had board positions just for renters.

Much of the issues with houses used as sober houses are very much fear based rather than fact based.  The opponents of these places use that fear to keep the issue alive and do so out of spite and fear themselves.  The majority of the people living in these sober environments came from the streets of Springfield, except now they are sober and working and  paying taxes.   Many have been in their HOMES a year , two and sometimes even years longer.  It is very much THEIR neighborhood.

While it is indeed a good thing, Zoo, to integrate all of the social economic groups in a community, that is very much different than actively trying to push a group out, close businesses of all kinds down that cater to those groups and actively trying to avoid giving those groups a say in the future of THEIR neighborhood.  When you factor in today’s economy, I would think through no fault of the community, the numbers are going the wrong way today and so the needs and wants of those low income groups are getting more important to the success of the community than even before.  Working WITH them rather than AGAINST them seems to be what is needed.

And yes, the  large part of the downfall of Springfield was historically “racist“.  Sorry, just basic history.

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 03, 2010, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: fsu813 on March 02, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

I respectfully call bullshit on this Springfield property owner nonsense.

Everyone who lives in Jacksonville has a stake in Springfield, whether they know it or not, and whether they rent or own their homes. Any neighborhood full of run-down, empty buildings and vacant lots reflects poorly on the entire city.

For the record, I happen to be a property owner. My property is in Arlington, but my taxes go to THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, not just Arlington; and I have just as much right to a say in what goes on in Springfield as these uppity newcomers.

I was born and raised in Jacksonville, and feel a sense of ownership towards the city as a whole, but I admit a special affection for the historic districts (San Marco, Riverside, Springfield) because I have lived, worked, played and shopped in all of them.

Yes, yes, Springfield is a historic district, and the architecture and character of the neighborhood should be preserved. However, preservation does NOT mean dialing it back 100 years and reducing it to a boring enclave of wealthy white people.

Recent transplants from... Burbank or somewhere who want to tell life-long residents of Springfield how to live their lives, run their businesses, and treat their less fortunate neighbors deserve to be kneecapped with an aluminum baseball bat.

Amen.

Quote from: striderFirst, the average renter technically pays more property tax than the average live-in home owner.  Always. Unless, of course, the landlord likes to lose money and charges less than the actually cost of ownership.  If paying the taxes is what gives one the 'right" to have a say in THEIR community, then the renters could be said to have more of a right than the other owners. 

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, that renters do pay, although it's indirectly. Landlords, without a doubt, pass such costs onto their tenants, even though it's not specified, it's included. As are the costs of the three new taxes COJ placed upon us all.

This is why it bothers me, when others say that renters shouldn't be included because they don't pay property taxes, because that's not so. Just as it's not so that renters aren't involved and active within their community. Granted, some are not, but not all property/homeowners are involved either.

LOL, if we went through the sign in sheet of the last community clean-up I can assure you most of the participants were not even from our neighborhood-renter or owner!

Quote from: second_pancake on March 03, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
White people screw up everything, Dan.  Don't you know that.

Yes. Yes I do.

Sad part is, the suspicious part of me deeply doubts any of these new posters commenting on the white scourge of Springfield are who they say they are, especially after finding out that one of them was using a stock photo off of a photo website. This is one of the "neighbors" with a facebook page, no less, who has no less than 30 common friends, that not one person acknowledges they have ever met.

Its interesting the lengths some are going to invoke race into this whole issue. Very interesting indeed.

Quote from: nvrenuf on March 03, 2010, 03:31:32 PM
Why did Paul Hout tell the Prez of the SIAWC that she could not attend a meeting of a group (the garden club) which is a committee of the SIAWC?

The garden club is a committee of the Women's Club? (this is not the Springfield community garden?)  What does the garden club do?  Does the garden club participate in the community garden?  

makes me think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6S9dCGwB8M

Quote from: uptowngirlLOL, if we went through the sign in sheet of the last community clean-up I can assure you most of the participants were not even from our neighborhood-renter or owner!

True that!

Quote from: stephendare on March 03, 2010, 07:24:17 PM
Dan, isnt it a bit like the boy who cried wolf at this point with you?

No one who disagrees with you is real unless youve met them personally?

Well if thats not the very definition of narcissism then nothing is.

The number of people that some have claimed to be 'suspicious' is not only laughably long, but the only thing in common that I can tell that unites them all is that they also tend to be demonstrably more intelligent and quicker on their feet.

Fearing intelligent people can't be a healthy sign.

Dont you have some more "forum etiquette" posts to go write, so we can all be as upstanding webizens as you?

Folks, go ahead and post quickly, I fear an impending lock-down approaching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUux8WALqG0&NR=1

Quote from: Dan B on March 03, 2010, 06:57:25 PM

Sad part is, the suspicious part of me deeply doubts any of these new posters commenting on the white scourge of Springfield are who they say they are, especially after finding out that one of them was using a stock photo off of a photo website. This is one of the "neighbors" with a facebook page, no less, who has no less than 30 common friends, that not one person acknowledges they have ever met.

Its interesting the lengths some are going to invoke race into this whole issue. Very interesting indeed.

Are you talkin' to me?

If you referring to my faux surprise about the stream of new posters invoking race into the Springfield threads. Sure.

Yawn.

So mentioning that Springfield was predominantly white 100 years ago (REAL FACT) constitutes playing the race card? I guess I just can't help myself, being half a pickaninny and all.

No matter. That unpleasant person seems to have been so busy scanning my post for something to pretend to be offended about that he missed my point entirely, which makes him not worth arguing with.

Consider this a gentle reminder... to all... to please remain civil... and avoid personal attacks.  The subject is volatile and all posters are responsible for keeping the tone of conversation at a civil level. :)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 04, 2010, 07:35:13 AM
Consider this a gentle reminder... to all... to please remain civil... and avoid personal attacks.  The subject is volatile and all posters are responsible for keeping the tone of conversation at a civil level. :)

I think this is good! Keep the attacks funny like Stephen!

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 03, 2010, 08:06:09 PM
So mentioning that Springfield was predominantly white 100 years ago (REAL FACT) constitutes playing the race card? I guess I just can't help myself, being half a pickaninny and all.

Were you there 100 years ago or are you just assuming it was boring because white people lived there?

Very enlightened of you

^ In fairness, it was a different world. Only 40 years removed from emancipation, and still 60 removed from desegregation, there is no doubt that 100 years ago the neighborhood was not one that most African Americans were welcome, frankly, as anything other than servants or nanny's.

However, to say that this is what ANYONE wants to return to is inflammatory, and race baiting. While the neighborhood is brimming over with opinions on countless issues, one thing that seems to be true of almost everyone is that they love Springfield for the diversity. That flies in the face that "uppity newcomers" wanting it to return to the days of a "boring enclave of wealthy white people"

Quote from: Dan B on March 04, 2010, 12:24:12 PM
^ In fairness, it was a different world. Only 40 years removed from emancipation, and still 60 removed from desegregation, there is no doubt that 100 years ago the neighborhood was not one that most African Americans were welcome, frankly, as anything other than servants or nanny's.

However, to say that this is what ANYONE wants to return to is inflammatory, and race baiting. While the neighborhood is brimming over with opinions on countless issues, one thing that seems to be true of almost everyone is that they love Springfield for the diversity. That flies in the face that "uppity newcomers" wanting it to return to the days of a "boring enclave of wealthy white people"

Agreed, I don't think anyone would want the neighborhood to turn into a "boring enclave of wealthy white people", but that doesn't mean that it was a boring place 100 years ago because it was full of wealthy white people. In that regard I guess Paris, Berlin, and London were boring back then too.

only able to speak for myself here, but i'm more concerned about springfield turning into a wealthy enclave ov boring white people--i've got nothing against white people; some ov my best friends are white!  i just find the attitudes ov the 'new blood' (for lack ov a better term) quite distressing--and the diversity diminishes every day.

Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

I didn't say "reverse racism". I think its a dumb term, and would never use it. Its high on my list of banned non-words with "same difference", and "irregardless".

Racism is racism, classism is classism, and stupid is stupid, no matter what the offending party's heritage may be.

Quote from: zoo on March 04, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Just. Wow.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 04, 2010, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: zoo on March 04, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Just. Wow.

I agree!

Zoo, I find it very interesting that you of all people are now saying that Springfield should be diverse and are spouting that here on this forum.  Yet, at least until very recently, your “commercial” strategy said something very different.  You don’t like pawn shops, yet they are used by every social economic group.  You came out against a thrift store, yet, again, they are used by every social economic group.  You were against the car wash as it was only legal by exception and so it would destroy the overlay, yet it is a business needed by every social economic group.  Did anyone speak against the recently approved major exception on Pearl Street? The use was only permissible by exception and the use is intensive for a residential area, so by your previous definitions, this exception could destroy the overlay as well. Of course a chocolate shop is “higher end” and so while, once again, every social economic group can use it, only the higher of the social economic groups probably will.

This all leads me to ask, have you changed your spots or are you just trying to go undercover?

And that is the real issue with SPAR Council and much of it’s supporters.  What they say and what they really mean are often two very separate things.  Remember the e-mails involving the “red Alerts?”  All non-profits that help the poor are predators, but they (SPAR Council) must be careful not to be seen  as believing that way. They say we must be truly integrated to be successful, but the polices enacted often promote the moving on of the poor.

We all need to realize that to have a truly successful Springfield community, it must be all inclusive,  very diverse and the leaders of SPAR Council needs to stop the attacks and start working with everyone rather than against them.

Quote from: zoo on March 04, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

I walked away and tried to formulate a polite response to that attitude. And I just can't.

I'm sorry, but that's racist. You don't get to decide what racial group should or shouldn't be moving into "your" area, according to your personal opinion of how diversity works. And which you've made perfectly clear should consist of more rich white people. So just bring back redlining while you're at it. Or in this case, we should call it SPAR-lining.

Could we buss some rich people in? Color should not matter if they are rich right?

Quote from: CS Foltz on March 04, 2010, 08:37:01 PM
Could we buss some rich people in? Color should not matter if they are rich right?

Don't worry, we are coming.

Quote

QuoteQuote from: zoo on Yesterday at 04:40:41 PM
Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote
1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

I walked away and tried to formulate a polite response to that attitude. And I just can't.

I'm sorry, but that's racist. You don't get to decide what racial group should or shouldn't be moving into "your" area, according to your personal opinion of how diversity works. And which you've made perfectly clear should consist of more rich white people. So just bring back redlining while you're at it. Or in this case, we should call it SPAR-lining.

It's not my opinion of what diversity is, or did you miss the Merriam-Webster part? I suppose the publisher's of dictionaries are also fools (along with the published experts on social injustice, neighborhood-level economics and community revitalization) and we should all just fall in line with you, Stephendare, strider and sheclown's version of the truth? And here's the rest of my post that Chris conveniently left off in an attempt to do exactly what was predicted...

QuoteAnd though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Btw, Strider, no "spot" change. My philosophy, or should I say my support of the published findings of experts in the field, hasn't changed at all. But the attempts to twist it to suit the views of those with less informed, self-interested, and predatory objectives have...

Quoteyour Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy

Let's please remember it was Stephen that typed that propaganda!

QuoteI haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

QuoteMy philosophy, or should I say my support of the published findings of experts in the field, hasn't changed at all. But the attempts to twist it to suit the views of those with less informed, self-interested, and predatory objectives have...

Two studies previously referenced in this thread...

Here's another:
http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/EconomicIntegration.pdf (http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/EconomicIntegration.pdf)

Also review the work done by Bruce Katz of Brookings and William Julius Wilson.

And when you contact them, be sure to ask them if they support a "Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy" so you can get the response you seek.

These experts, and numerous others, are all idiots. We should just jump on the sparsely-supported bandwagon of Stephen, the all-knowing cunning linguist.

Quote from: stephendare on March 05, 2010, 09:02:44 AM
im telling you.  more calcium.

less koolaid.

Well, thats productive.

Gee, Zoo, I think you just called me a predator!  Puts you right there with a bunch of other Lola's who have no clue of what they speak.

I checked out your links from your original post.  In a nut shell, they are saying that segregating the poor into separate enclaves is wrong and does not work.  Big surprise, we all know that.  I believe the biggest examples used are the projects of the sixties and seventies. Built at great taxpayer's expense, many if not most have been bulldozed out of existence. Some, though, most likely were taken out not for those humanitarian reasons, but because the property became valuable to the "haves". Just the way of the world sometimes.

I never thought you changed your spots, you are simply hiding how you really feel behind a few studies that say nice things. Your reactions to various posts and your non-support of businesses and programs that are all inclusive give away your real feelings about this subject, regardless of what you might publicly now say.

The bottom line here is that even the studies you claim to subscribe to do not say force a social economic group out. They do not say to only allow and support businesses that your favorite social economic group may like.  They really mean what all of us have been saying.  To be truly successful, a modern urban community must be all inclusive and all must work together to achieve that. Some day I hope you will learn that.

To that end, Zoo, do you recognize any of the quotes below?

QuoteSuccessful economic integration requires working with the market, not against
it.

IZ represents a dramatic shift away from “Euclidian” zoning laws.

Their mantra is: “If someone is good enough
to work here, they ought to be good enough to live here.”

Above all, political success requires convincing citizens that the affordable units
will not harm property values.

Light rail systems are valuable not just because they respond to present demand
for transit but because they shape future demand for transit.

In short, the development of new light rail systems across American cities offers
an opportunity to build economically integrated transit villages.

Policies for promoting economic integration should not tell people where to live.

Economic integration, stated simply, means that households of all
different income levels have realistic housing options in all parts of a
metropolitan area, so that they can pursue opportunities throughout the region.

Indeed, as we show, inclusionary zoning and transit-oriented development can leverage market values to increase economic integration, with all its collateral benefits, at little or no cost to taxpayers.

They are all from the study for which you posted a link to in your recent post.  These few quotes actually support what myself, Stephan, MetroJacksonville and many others have been saying.  They are pretty much opposed to the known polices as enacted by SPAR Council, of which you are their “marketing expert" on the Board.

QuoteAnd when you contact them, be sure to ask them if they support a "Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy" so you can get the response you seek.

Try this more accurate phrasing next time:

"Mr. Katz, while your work has not yet been sited in a spirited public debate regarding economic segregation/integration and its impact on poverty-stricken communities, one participant has indicated a review of your work on urban housing policy and its effect in this regard. I am hopeful that, with your experience and background, you would be willing to issue a comment on the topic that will assist our readers in developing an informed perspective."

If you wish to contact those who are sited, you would have to contact Paul Jargowsky, Todd Swanstrom, Margery Austin Turner, Lynette A. Rawlings or Susan J. Popkin.

Strider/Stephen, have read them all and recognize well the larger issues with which the concentration of low-income populations are intertwined, including transit, workforce housing, and job availability.

Quoteyou have publicly denounced the idea of trolleys and workforce housing that we have endorsed on this site

Stephen, there we were having such a good debate. Regretful you must resort to lying, or meh-ing, or YouTube posting when you find yourself on the losing end. I have never, nor would I ever, denounce "the idea of trolleys and workforce housing." That, like much of the rest of your twisted propoganda, is just absurd.

QuoteThe bottom line here is that even the studies you claim to subscribe to do not say force a social economic group out.

Strider, nor did I. Please re-read that part of my post (esp the first few words of the second phrase):

QuoteAnd though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

My post does not say anyone currently, and legally, residing in Springfield should be forced out. My post refers to those wanting to come in, and I have no bones to pick with any one single home-renter or buyer who is in compliance with the laws of the municipality.

However, I'm calling bullshit on any group, non-profit or otherwise, that wants to stack more low- or no-income persons (of any ethnicity) in Springfield, while claiming it's good for those persons or is necessary to maintain diversity, just because Springfield is perceived as the easiest place to do so or "where we've always put 'them.'" That is the kind of language and reasoning I hear frequently from you, other seemingly well-intentioned social service providers, and public policymakers in this screwed up, suburb- and segregation-minded mess of Jacksonville.

Fact: If economic integration is the answer as the experts indicate, in Springfield integration requires re-balancing the socio-economics in favor of higher wage earners.

QuoteYou are for running a street car/rail line trolley down either main street or hubbard/laura?

How about "HELL YES!"

QuoteYou are for low income workforce housing being developed in Springfield?

This question refers to two separate things -- check HUD. Workforce housing (80-120% ami), yes. By "low-income" housing, I presume you are referring to affordable housing (below 80% ami)? There is already so much of it in Springfield, with existing single- or multi-family for sale or rental, I don't think more is necessary. But if workforce housing were executed as multi-family, I would certainly be ok with an integrated structure/complex that included a few more low-income units. But the majority of units would need to be workforce-level, and maybe include a few on the other end of the socio-economic spectrum for middle- and higher-wage earners so the entire community mix gets closer to integrated.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question (edited)...

I am for multi-family, workforce housing (80-120% ami) being developed. There is already a bunch of single-family, workforce housing available in Springfield for sale or rent, so I'm not sure why any developer would do this (yet), and hope that developers, or workforce level homebuyers, will shift focus to rehabbing existing housing stock for this purpose.

I am for affordable housing (<80% ami) only where it is an integrated, smaller part of a multi-family project that also includes a larger percentage of workforce and middle-higher income level units. I am against an affordable unit-only project, as that continues the existing economic imbalance (segregation of the poor in Springfield and other northside communities).

I find that response to be reasonable.

I still think we're ignoring the 800-lb gorilla in room, to wit; 99% of Zoo's <80%'s are part of a protected minority.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, whatever. Zoo, you're dodging the reality of it. Call it whatever you want, but if the net result is one group excluding another group it's discriminatory in my book. This argument has played out unsuccessfully how many times in history? Yours was the same logic used to apply literacy testing at the voting booth, in areas where everyone knew most blacks were illiterate. Except instead of literacy, you're proposing a standard based on percentage of income or housing cost deviation. Your <80% group is predominantly african-american, and the net effect of allowing for the use of your logic will inevitably be discriminatory.

I'm guessing you pulled that 99% figure out of a hat.

I do not see where race plays into the logic that bringing more "higher" income earners into the mix is needed to revitalize the district.

But... if you say that 99% of the poor are minority races, who am I to argue?

Quote from: buckethead on March 05, 2010, 12:00:29 PM
I'm guessing you pulled that 99% figure out of a hat.

I do not see where race plays into the logic that bringing more "higher" income earners into the mix is needed to revitalize the district.

But... if you say that 99% of the poor are minority races, who am I to argue?

Where did you see any discussion of incentives to induce high-income residents to come to the neighborhood? Grants? Loans? What? I must have missed that part. Because it seems pretty clear to me that what we were discussing is how to exclude who we don't want, and not how to include who we do.

And would you really want to wager on what percentage of Springfield residents falling below the poverty line belong to a protected minority? 99% may have been low...

I would not argue that which I do not know.

I'm basing my assessment on that which I have read in this thread. Zoo seems to indicate a desire to restrict further low income housing initiations in favor of attracting more middle class earners into the district.

I do not know Zoo, nor do I live in Springfield. It might be that I am entirely wrong, but based on the reading I have done in this thread, I see no grounds to label him/her a racist, nor do I see where he/she has suggested the removal of any race or economic class from the district.

I do recall another thread where Zoo seemed to oppose the car wash. I disagreed with that position (as an outsider). I also disgree with the notion that sober houses are a bad usage within Springfield. Any historic structure that has a roof intact is more likely to survive the state of blight that plagues the area than an abandoned structure.

Wishing to incentivise a higher income earners to reside Springfield (regardless of the race of the income earner) does not seem unwise.

I would go so far as to suggest promoting practices that would elevate the incomes of current Springfielders. (How's that for radical thinking?)

Quote from: buckethead on March 05, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Wishing to incentivise a higher income earners to reside Springfield (regardless of the race of the income earner) does not seem unwise.

I would go so far as to suggest promoting practices that would elevate the incomes of current Springfielders.

+1

QuoteSuccessful economic integration requires working with the market, not against
it.

Their mantra is: “If someone is good enough
to work here, they ought to be good enough to live here.”

Above all, political success requires convincing citizens that the affordable units
will not harm property values.

quote]


First, let's look at your entire quote:  "And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand."

You admitted you do not wish the low income groups to come here and certainly you actions in the past has supported my belief that you do not want them here period.  Also, you need to actually read my posts about the sober house residents as they were here, have been here and will be here regardless of your polices and wishes.

Please explain to me how your and SPAR Council's recent polices support the highlighted quotes above.

"I do not know Zoo, nor do I live in Springfield. It might be that I am entirely wrong, but based on the reading I have done in this thread, I see no grounds to label him/her a racist, nor do I see where he/she has suggested the removal of any race or economic class from the district."

- yeah, but that doesn't generate contraversy. or haven't you learned that that's the sole purpose of these posts....?

really? seriously?  we have so many people tripping over themselves to buy homes in springfield that there is an option to pick and choose by net worth/race/gender etc? 
can i get some clarification on what the required income is to live in springfield, 'cause i'm thinking i might need to move, super stat.
maybe we can do like they american indians do in order to receive benefits on the reservation and through the tribe - issue tribal cards that show proof of lineage. 

This seems a bit disingenuous. The point is; people, by and large, are not wanting to move into Springfield due to the fact that much of the area is delapidated, percieved high crime area, and rampant homelessness/drug addicted prescence.

Whether real or percieved, low income housing is thought to inevitably increase much of what middle class earners of every race, culture and creed consider undesirable. ( citation not neccesary ;) )

To deny this is folly which can only perpetuate the status quo. I sense more defensive reaction in this debate than thoughtful solution seeking.

Quote from: buckethead on March 05, 2010, 02:01:01 PM
This seems a bit disingenuous. The point is; people, by and large, are not wanting to move into Springfield due to the fact that much of the area is delapidated, percieved high crime area, and rampant homelessness/drug addicted prescence.

Whether real or percieved, low income housing is thought to inevitably increase much of what middle class earners of every race, culture and creed consider undesirable. ( citation not neccesary ;) )

To deny this is folly which can only perpetuate the status quo. I sense more defensive reaction in this debate than thoughtful solution seeking.

now that is funny, because those are the some of the reasons that i have given for not wanting to ever live in Arlington again.
want to guess where the highest crime rate in alllll of jacksonville is?  it's not springfield. 

I would venture a guess that most would agree with you in not wanting to live in Arlington.

The perception is what it is. Are you saying that I am mistaken with regard to the popular perception that Springfiled is delapidated and crime ridden?

Have most of the historic structures not been robbed of their architectual elements? Their Fixtures? Thier copper?

Are residents not forced to take extra precaution to protect thier air conditioners form copper looters? Can any person take a random drive through Springfield and feel completely secure in the fact that they and thier families would be perfeclty secure moving into the neighborhood?

My intent is not to insult the neighborhood or it's residents. I actually admire both. Defensive arguements will not advance what I see as being a common goal among Springfielders: Improving the community.

There will be differing opinions, but the debate here has really devolved into nothing more than namecalling.

Buckethead, in response to your questions, and with no name calling, as it's clear you are operating on a badly outdated perception of our neighborhood.  Don't feel badly, though. Most Jacksonville residents are just as clueless about the reality.

Yes, you are mistaken in regard to the popular perception that Springfield is dilapidated and crime-ridden.  It was for a time...no question.  However, in the last 10 years or so, most of the homes have been renovated and crime, while not completely gone in Springfield or any other neighborhood in Jacksonville, is no longer the major problem is was.

No, most of the historic structures have not been robbed of their architectural elements, their fixtures, or their copper.  Come take a drive around and see the beautiful homes, or attend one of our homes tours.  SPAR has one coming up in May.

No, residents are not forced to take extra precautions for their air conditioners, although some have.  We had a copper thief targeting the neighborhood for awhile, so it wasn't a bad idea.  There's a scrap metal recycling facility near Springfield, so that made us convenient.

Yes, a person can take a random drive through Springfield and feel secure that they and their family would be secure in Springfield...at least as secure as anywhere else in town.  No place is perfect.  We do, in fact, have many families with children in Springfield.

i agree, there are A LOT of very narrow minded people that do think that.  those are the ones that most likely have not been to springfield in a very long time.  
as for the vacant delapidated - have you driven through some of the new abandoned subdivisions out in the burbs where some poor sap that got in on the ground floor of the "phase 1" is the only one living there with nothing but empty vandalized foreclosed homes with not a soul around should they need help?
i take the same precautions in springfield that i take ANYWHERE i go - to not do so is simply stupid and making yourself a target.  if memory serves me, not so very long ago there was a rash of violent B&E's in the southside - wouldn't move there either.
it's alright, feel free to insult the residents of springfield, we are used to it.  scanning most forums, springfield has the most active neighborhood in jacksonville and more people that DON'T live here take an unusual interest in all that goes on in our 1 square mile than any other neighborhood.  guess we are kinda like that big car crash - people just can't help but look.

I do not disagree with this. I probably should refrain from posting in these threads, as I find myself in a debate in which I don't belong.

I would like to see Springfield restored to it's former architectural glory. That is where my interest in the debate ends.

We're almost completely there, Buckethead.  Have you been over to see?

I have driven through Springfield within the past 3 months. A haphazard, self guided tour of random streets.

It is a charming neighborhood. For every jewell there is a lump of coal. Some are clustered and some are mixed. I do wish I had bought a rehabber a few years back.

When I was in the market for a house, 2001, prices in Springfeild were already starting to elevate, and I saw Ponte Vedra as a better value.

My wife was opposed to living in Springfield. Avondale was a go, but Springfield was out of her consideration. Perception is a stronger opionion maker than fact.

Quote from: stephendare on March 05, 2010, 02:41:21 PM
the vacant houses (there were hundreds and hundreds of them) are still being filled with people (of all types) who love them and whose work has created a safety net throughout the neighborhood.

Well, now to be fair, sure, many properties have been filled, but a huge pile have been improperly demolished.

Again, courtesy of Zoo and the self-annointed landslide of 39.

Oops, I forgot that FSU's wife's joining, so make that "landslide of 40". Sorry for the mistake!

"The perception is what it is. Are you saying that I am mistaken with regard to the popular perception that Springfiled is delapidated and crime ridden?"

- that perception is still extremely common, unfortunately.

Especially by Jacksonville natives, which is not helpful.

So no, you are not incorrect in saying that.

And threads such as this:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4057.msg136119/topicseen.html#new

don't help.

Quote from: fsu813 on March 05, 2010, 03:06:47 PM
And threads such as this:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4057.msg136119/topicseen.html#new

don't help.

I'm sorry, but didn't one of your group's members launch a chair at the WC meeting? Not to mention the multiple drunken tirades that have been launched? I'm sorry if telling the truth 'doesn't help' but not entirely sure what I can do about that?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 05, 2010, 03:50:09 PM
I'm sorry, but didn't one of your group's members launch a chair at the WC meeting? Not to mention the multiple drunken tirades that have been launched? I'm sorry if telling the truth 'doesn't help' but not entirely sure what I can do about that?

I am not aware of any chair-launchings.  At which meeting did the alleged furniture projectile occur?

I was at that meeting, and didn't see any chair throwing...there were loud rants, but didn't see any furniture being tossed around

Actually, the only "chair throwing" I have heard about was at a SPAR Council meeting or just after it rather that the WC. And it was sometime ago.  I think ChriswUFGator may have just heard about the incident and so mistook the time and place as the more recent hoopla at the WC.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 05, 2010, 02:35:33 PM
Buckethead, in response to your questions, and with no name calling, as it's clear you are operating on a badly outdated perception of our neighborhood.  Don't feel badly, though. Most Jacksonville residents are just as clueless about the reality.

Yes, you are mistaken in regard to the popular perception that Springfield is dilapidated and crime-ridden.  It was for a time...no question.  However, in the last 10 years or so, most of the homes have been renovated and crime, while not completely gone in Springfield or any other neighborhood in Jacksonville, is no longer the major problem is was.

No, most of the historic structures have not been robbed of their architectural elements, their fixtures, or their copper.  Come take a drive around and see the beautiful homes, or attend one of our homes tours.  SPAR has one coming up in May.

No, residents are not forced to take extra precautions for their air conditioners, although some have.  We had a copper thief targeting the neighborhood for awhile, so it wasn't a bad idea.  There's a scrap metal recycling facility near Springfield, so that made us convenient.

Yes, a person can take a random drive through Springfield and feel secure that they and their family would be secure in Springfield...at least as secure as anywhere else in town.  No place is perfect.  We do, in fact, have many families with children in Springfield.

Debbie, I have to agree with most of your post with the exception of the bad perception part.  People on these boards may know the truth about the neighborhood but before I decided to build in Springfield, I did my research which started with just asking people what they thought of Springfield (I just wanted an idea of public perception) because I had been living out of state for about 12yrs.  Out of about 20 people I asked, about 15 of them still had the outdated look and thoughts of the neighborhood.  Now, they had this thought because they hadn't ventured there lately and the 5 that thought the neighborhood was making a turn had been there recently. 

I made a post on Facebook back when my realtor (who happens to be my mother) was going to take us to look at some of the SRG houses in Springfield.  It didn't even take an hour for people to start posting stupid stuff like "how can you endanger your children like that", "why would you want to take your wife and daughter to be around child molestors and rapists?"  Needless to say, I snapped right back with how stupid that was to think that and to even accuse me of putting my family in a not so safe situation. 

So, it is still common thought that Springfield is dirty, crime ridden and just slum like.  Honestly, that is fine with me.  I have quickly come to the thought of, I don't want people to know about Springfield, I don't want to have to convince them about where I live. I love the place and they haven't even laid the foundation on our place.

WHY ALL THE DRAMA? SPRINGFIELD IS EATING MJ!

I had lunch there today, right at 8Th and Main, as I live in WGV I thought I'd see what SPAR has been up to. Walking down the west side of the sidewalk to 7Th, I passed one abandoned doorway, complete with pillow, blanket, and about 1/2 ton of garbage (supplies?).

Tracing the old streetcar line from Main down 8Th toward Talleyrand can be hazardous to your health, though you could apparently buy enough diversions, from flesh to Marrakesh.

Over at the VA clinic, they finally fixed the craters along Boulevard Street parallel parking after the 349 disabled patriot dropped his axle over the curb and became stuck, only to be ticketed by the parking Nazi's. They brought out the heavy equipment and loads of limestone and started grading and leveling. They installed about 20 new parking enforcement signs allowing for a STRICT one hour parking (your screwed if your medical appointment goes a bit long). After all that they packed up and left! Now the clinic has a beautiful Springfield road, with big chunks of limestone mixed with weeds and washed out grasses. There are two improvements, even though they never put a ounce of asphalt or concrete down, they did  1. Post a parking Nazi who even when not visible, has an all seeing eye for disabled veterans.  2. They cleared the litter and other trash from the craters... but of course they allowed it to flow into Hogans Creek just south of 8Th.

Meanwhile, down in the central park system along the said creek, one can have a really nice stroll if you don't stray too near the creek, as long as the wind is blowing AWAY from that ditch. Closer in toward downtown there are walkways and balusters liberally dotted with human excrement and spent toilet paper, rags, napkins, and corn cobs.

Though I'm an urbanest, current invested in the burbs due to economic opportunities, we have looked downtown several times. Springfield has a few possible places I have seen and one that I rather like, but I suppose my grandson would have to attend First Baptist or some other private school. Springfield has some lovely old schools until you see that the principal has driven to the school in an M-1 Abrams Tank.  Okay, just kidding, but does ANYONE send their kids to the local schools?

I've heard that several people have wanted to open new businesses along Main Street, but SPAR has disapproved of either them, their business, or their plan... Hell just a year ago, this entire sight went mad over someone leaving a "Room for rent" flier in a local Springfield Gas Station. SPAR was all about kicking out the riff-raff which seems to be defined as your tired, your poor, your hungry, or your huddled masses.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I live out in St. Johns, and you know what? If someone wanted to reopen or build a car wash, and sell coke and chips my whole neighborhood would welcome them and turn out for the opening day "hot dogs and balloons." If SPAR can't do the same in Springfield, someone needs to ask why? Doesn't that suggest that deep down the very organization itself suspects almost anyone and everyone as a possible code breaking blight on the community.  Yet way out here in the boondocks we'd be throwing a party because we could BUY coke and chips without having to drive 8 miles. We'd celebrate the new neighbors, the new business, the new convenience, and toast their success... Are the people in Springfield REALLY that different? Someone please explain to me why if the neighborhood is so safe and attractive, everyone is so suspect?


Not being a smart ass here, I'd really like someone to dig down and figure this out...


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: strider on March 05, 2010, 08:12:45 PM
Actually, the only "chair throwing" I have heard about was at a SPAR Council meeting or just after it rather that the WC. And it was sometime ago.  I think ChriswUFGator may have just heard about the incident and so mistook the time and place as the more recent hoopla at the WC.

I believe you are right. I got my dates mixed up. I do know one of the SPAR LOLA's lobbed a chair at a meeting, since I heard about it from 5 different people. But I wasn't there personally, so I got confused as to exactly which meeting it was. Thank you for reminding me, and my apologies to everyone for the confusion.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 05, 2010, 10:19:39 PM
WHY ALL THE DRAMA? SPRINGFIELD IS EATING MJ!

I had lunch there today, right at 8Th and Main, as I live in WGV I thought I'd see what SPAR has been up to. Walking down the west side of the sidewalk to 7Th, I passed one abandoned doorway, complete with pillow, blanket, and about 1/2 ton of garbage (supplies?).

Tracing the old streetcar line from Main down 8Th toward Talleyrand can be hazardous to your health, though you could apparently buy enough diversions, from flesh to Marrakesh.

Over at the VA clinic, they finally fixed the craters along Boulevard Street parallel parking after the 349 disabled patriot dropped his axle over the curb and became stuck, only to be ticketed by the parking Nazi's. They brought out the heavy equipment and loads of limestone and started grading and leveling. They installed about 20 new parking enforcement signs allowing for a STRICT one hour parking (your screwed if your medical appointment goes a bit long). After all that they packed up and left! Now the clinic has a beautiful Springfield road, with big chunks of limestone mixed with weeds and washed out grasses. There are two improvements, even though they never put a ounce of asphalt or concrete down, they did  1. Post a parking Nazi who even when not visible, has an all seeing eye for disabled veterans.  2. They cleared the litter and other trash from the craters... but of course they allowed it to flow into Hogans Creek just south of 8Th.

Meanwhile, down in the central park system along the said creek, one can have a really nice stroll if you don't stray too near the creek, as long as the wind is blowing AWAY from that ditch. Closer in toward downtown there are walkways and balusters liberally dotted with human excrement and spent toilet paper, rags, napkins, and corn cobs.

Though I'm an urbanest, current invested in the burbs due to economic opportunities, we have looked downtown several times. Springfield has a few possible places I have seen and one that I rather like, but I suppose my grandson would have to attend First Baptist or some other private school. Springfield has some lovely old schools until you see that the principal has driven to the school in an M-1 Abrams Tank.  Okay, just kidding, but does ANYONE send their kids to the local schools?

I've heard that several people have wanted to open new businesses along Main Street, but SPAR has disapproved of either them, their business, or their plan... Hell just a year ago, this entire sight went mad over someone leaving a "Room for rent" flier in a local Springfield Gas Station. SPAR was all about kicking out the riff-raff which seems to be defined as your tired, your poor, your hungry, or your huddled masses.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I live out in St. Johns, and you know what? If someone wanted to reopen or build a car wash, and sell coke and chips my whole neighborhood would welcome them and turn out for the opening day "hot dogs and balloons." If SPAR can't do the same in Springfield, someone needs to ask why? Doesn't that suggest that deep down the very organization itself suspects almost anyone and everyone as a possible code breaking blight on the community.  Yet way out here in the boondocks we'd be throwing a party because we could BUY coke and chips without having to drive 8 miles. We'd celebrate the new neighbors, the new business, the new convenience, and toast their success... Are the people in Springfield REALLY that different? Someone please explain to me why if the neighborhood is so safe and attractive, everyone is so suspect?


Not being a smart ass here, I'd really like someone to dig down and figure this out...


OCKLAWAHA

My response to OCKS questions were moved, not sure why, as he asked....

so here they are again:

"I had lunch there today, right at 8Th and Main, as I live in WGV I thought I'd see what SPAR has been up to."

Simply attend one of the various public meetings or give them a call if you'd like to know what they've been up to. The next one is tonight @ 7pm. It's a Board meeting but they are always open to the public.

"Okay, just kidding, but does ANYONE send their kids to the local schools?"

Yes, there is another thread on this. Some are highly rated, some are not.

"I've heard that several people have wanted to open new businesses along Main Street, but SPAR has disapproved of either them, their business, or their plan... "

You need to find a better source for your information then. How about attending on of the various public meetings or giving them a call? Or asking Three Layers, Fusion, A&A Auto, Wafaa & Mikes, Hola, Uptown, City Kidz, 3rd & Main Apartments, Fortec, Shifters, H&R Block, Tommys (all businesses within the historic district) if they feel the organization has been anti-business. Not all businesses will be welcome, of course, just like anywhere else.

"SPAR was all about kicking out the riff-raff which seems to be defined as your tired, your poor, your hungry, or your huddled masses. "

Again, you need to find another source for your information. The best would be to attend one of the various public meetings or, if you cannot, send them an email or call them.

"If someone wanted to reopen or build a car wash, and sell coke and chips my whole neighborhood would welcome them and turn out for the opening day "hot dogs and balloons." If SPAR can't do the same in Springfield, someone needs to ask why? Doesn't that suggest that deep down the very organization itself suspects almost anyone and everyone as a possible code breaking blight on the community.  Yet way out here in the boondocks we'd be throwing a party because we could BUY coke and chips without having to drive 8 miles. We'd celebrate the new neighbors, the new business, the new convenience, and toast their success... Are the people in Springfield REALLY that different? Someone please explain to me why if the neighborhood is so safe and attractive, everyone is so suspect?"

Different areas of town have different issues, you know this. St. Johns County & Springfield have very different concerns, you know this. Or you should. If you'd like to find out what issues Springfielders are trying to address or the organization has done this or that, (broken record) attend one of the various public meetings and ask, or give them a phone call and speak to them about it. There is a balance to be struck between being naive & suspect, which, unfortunatley, is necessary.

And Stephan, what is very interesting is that a actual SPAR Council board member has been posting studies on other threads that indicate we should be doing exactly what is accomplished by the sober houses.  Yet, what is SPAR Council doing?  Trying their best to get the houses deemed illegal by the city, the state or anyone who might possibly listen to them.  So much for those fine SPAR Council board members  advocating for true integration of the various social economic groups and being all inclusive.

This is another thread that could benefit from a name change!

Strider, I haven't had any in depth discussions with SPAR members (board or otherwise) about sober houses.  What are the stated reasons for keeping them out of the neighborhood?  Is the problem really their mission (which I think is admirable) or is it related to concerns about maintenance and suitability of physical facilities or something else?

Miss Fixit, just some “light” reading from this forum.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6645.15.html

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6509.0.html

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6380.0.html

I would be happy to discuss the sober houses and how they have been perceived and attacked by SPAR Council’s executive board anytime.  Coffee at Three Layers on me?

But it boils down to this: they do not like the men and woman who need the sober houses in "their" community, they do not understand what we do and therfore have fear over it and they certainly do not like us because we can not be bullied by the likes of them. 

Coffee sounds good.  I'll PM you to set it up.

Quote from: CityLife on March 04, 2010, 11:58:40 AM

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 03, 2010, 08:06:09 PM
So mentioning that Springfield was predominantly white 100 years ago (REAL FACT) constitutes playing the race card? I guess I just can't help myself, being half a pickaninny and all.

Were you there 100 years ago or are you just assuming it was boring because white people lived there?

Very enlightened of you

Not even close! Springfield was quite lively 100 years ago. Go to the Florida Room at the downtown library and read the society columns from the newspapers back then if you don't believe me. (And no, despite what certain people may say, I was NOT here 100 years ago.)

I just think Springfield would become boring if it became an exclusive wealthy white enclave NOW. I've been in a few wealthy white neighborhoods recently, and there's no quirky little shops, all the houses are painted in the same tasteful shades of white, gray and beige, they all have the same kind of shrubbery and flowers, loud music not permitted, and individuality of any kind is discouraged.

I find that pointlessly boring. Bland uniformity serves no purpose but to give people a false sense of security, and provide neighborhood associations with a revenue stream from fining people for planting the wrong color tulips.

Atlantic Beach just called. They want their homogenous blandness and uniformity back.
Apparently they didn't get the memo.

Quote from: stephendare on March 05, 2010, 08:39:05 AM

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 03, 2010, 08:39:51 PM
No matter. That unpleasant person seems to have been so busy scanning my post for something to pretend to be offended about that he missed my point entirely, which makes him not worth arguing with.

DeadGirls:  I ran across this photo of you from San Marco back in the 80s.  I think you were still working with Phyllis at the first Peterbrooke's.

Was San Marco this acrimonious back when it was going through the changes?  I don't remember it being so mean, although there it seems like there was constant scandal.  Five Points went through a pretty hostile phase, I can vouch for.

I never actually worked in the Square.  Do you remember anything like all this?

(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs490.snc3/26785_348419941669_548811669_3664777_5000442_n.jpg)

Good God, no. I remember having to snatch the samples off the counter and hide them when a certain lady (whose real name I don't recall) came into Peterbrooke, and hung around idly chatting with anybody who would listen for as long as it took her to eat every last morsel out of the bowl of chocolate-covered popcorn, for which she was nicknamed "Hoover Lips."

Keeping that odd bit of trivia in mind, I'm sure there were some petty squabbles going on in San Marco, but I don't recall nastiness worth remembering 20 years later.

Actually, I remember the merchants in San Marco Square helping each other out with things. The movie theater provided Peterbrooke with lovely fresh popcorn, and Cafe on the Square let me use one of the unused upstairs kitchens to make the giant chocolate chip cookies. I'm sure Phyllis was doing some kind of favor in return.

Then there was the shopkeeper who planted flowers all over the Square... I believe the other merchants chipped in on the cost of the plants.

And some shop owners gave each other's employees discounts and so forth. I don't remember anybody being hateful and nasty; if they were, they did it so slyly and politely that little peons with chocolate-smeared faces didn't notice. (Phyllis let you eat all the chocolate you wanted as long as it wasn't packaged up for sale, back then.)

P.S. Yes, there was probably a cause-and-effect relationship between the brandy in that snifter and the giant black velvet bow on my head. That bow was no end of fabulous in the 80s, and I refuse to apologise for it.

Quote from: strider on March 08, 2010, 09:37:04 AM
And Stephan, what is very interesting is that a actual SPAR Council board member has been posting studies on other threads that indicate we should be doing exactly what is accomplished by the sober houses.  Yet, what is SPAR Council doing?  Trying their best to get the houses deemed illegal by the city, the state or anyone who might possibly listen to them.  So much for those fine SPAR Council board members  advocating for true integration of the various social economic groups and being all inclusive.

That's because they mis-quote the authors and don't bother to actually read the entirety of what they're posting. They just find a snippet or two that, taken out of context, gives the false appearance of supporting their position. I'm fed up with watching this happen. I sent a letter to W. J. Wilson this morning, I have too much respect for him to allow him to be included in Zoo's reprinting of "The White Man's Burden." She certainly managed to accurately sum up her position on who should be "allowed" in the neighborhood, moving forward. I'll give her that much.

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 08, 2010, 12:55:54 PM
I find that pointlessly boring. Bland uniformity serves no purpose but to give people a false sense of security, and provide neighborhood associations with a revenue stream from fining people for planting the wrong color tulips.

i love you for this.  your icon's pretty nifty too.

Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 08, 2010, 01:38:45 PM
P.S. Yes, there was probably a cause-and-effect relationship between the brandy in that snifter and the giant black velvet bow on my head. That bow was no end of fabulous in the 80s, and I refuse to apologise for it.

You sound, amazingly intresting to chat with.