The Structure of the Revitalization Machine

[jcjohnpaint]

I think it was a wonderful point to mention that particular council person.  That particular council person must be isolated and blamed along with all of the others that are holding this project (downtown revitalization) back.  Certain council member's concerns are for a few people and not for the greater good.  I think the Czar would be great, but we must also isolate and 'blame' the villains of the vision.  There are many great scenario of a great downtown.  Having a child friendly disney esque 'only' Baptist church based downtown where alcohol and the young are not welcomed is on VERY NARROW and IGNORANT point over view.  This particular point of view is not healthy and is discriminating to all the other social groups.   I feel these poor leaders need to be brought to the public's notice.  I would like to know who they are and maybe we could change there point of view or suggest they find another job- a job they might do much better at. 

[ronchamblin]

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/fbc/FBCmap.jpg

This is the city block ratio as occupied and theoretically influenced by the FBC if we assume a two-block limit of influence.  I have shown 11 blocks, although they may not be in the exact locations as shown.

[ronchamblin]

I'll try again to get the photo complete.

[thelakelander]

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/fbc/FBCmap.jpg

This is the city block ratio as occupied and theoretically influenced by the FBC if we assume a two-block limit of influence.  I have shown 11 blocks, although they may not be in the exact locations as shown.

Assuming no one would outright make a rule that favored FBC alone, one could only assume the one or two block limit would apply to every church in downtown.  My guess is by the time someone figured out that radius there would be little to nothing left outside of it.

[ronchamblin]

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/utf-8BSU1BRzAyMjguanBn.jpg

Hopefully this will show the entire photo.  And yes, Lake, this is without the other churches.

[Ralph W]

I, for one, do not see why a church should have special influence outside the boundaries of their properties. Across the street should not be controlled simply because some uptight religious order says so and can exert influence because some of its members hold elective office.

Much is said about the separation of church and state but very little is done other than to knuckle under to a certain voting block.

This voting block can look in the mirror and know who is taking part in the demise of the downtown area.

The various churches however, are not the only cause of our downtown woes. Looking back at all the business moves you can see that many moves are because the bean counters thought that the grass was greener on the other side of the river and then down the road a bit, too. Certainly the green flowed, until the next pasture was cleared and planted with buildings and then the herd followed, leaving behind a plucked and dried up landscape.

Dwindling returns to the city coffers because the herd ran off caused the powers that be to attempt to keep the revenue coming by finding more ways to suck the life out of those remaining. Ill though out projects, started and abandoned when the intitial financing ran out or never properly completed, draconian legislation and back breaking rules for development and for small business efforts as well as warfare aimed at the consumer, such as parking rules, and the ever present "lets approve or even fund pet projects of the high and mighty", have drained the well dry.

Expensive study after study are gathering dust in odd corners of the city while still more are thought needed because - who knows? A recent study by an outside consultant was for our library system. It doesn't matter who actually paid for the study. What matters is we have a Library Director who is well versed in the field, attends and speaks at "forward thinking" conferences, yet is deemed unable to apply her extensive knowlege with out the handholding of an outside entity. We are wasting time and money on this sort of thing on a regular basis and we wonder why we, as a city, are so far behind the eight ball.

[Debbie Thompson]

FBC has been downtown for 100 years.  They were downtown when we had a vital downtown.  I don't think FBC is the problem you imagine it to be.

I've lived here sine the 1960's.  When I was young, downtown was still a vibrant shopping district.  Lots of people took the bus to work, and shopped the stores around Hemming Plaza before boarding the bus to go home.  I did myself.  There wasn't a lot of housing downtown then either, but the buses were near the shopping, and all the major department stores had a downtown presence.

Personally, I think consolidation, JT Butler and the opening of more easily developed land via the "bridges to nowhere" (Buckman and Dames Point) along with the point made that with 850 square miles of most vacant land, and a political climate where you can't say no to someone who wants to build a million unneeded apartment units and strip malls of stores to service them is what killed downtown.  That, and expensive and limited parking vs. acres of free parking in the suburbs.

There is another thread on Metro Jax with some low cost ideas to revitalize downtown.  I hope the new city administration takes some of them to heart.  While we continue to "study" the issue, and tear down building after building to build more city offices and courthouse buildings that don't contribute to the vitality of downtown, downtown continues to die a slow, painful death.  The new federal courthouse sits on property once occupied by stores and a hotel.  City Hall was once a major downtown department store, and the annex building (Universal Marion) also housed a department store, a revolving restaurant, and private enterprise offices.  Where the new public library and the art museum sit, although they are great, once sat stores.  People don't live in buildings such as these.

The City probably thought they were "saving downtown" by building such marble and limestone monuments away from the riverfront. In fact, it was said it was silly to have government buildings on valuable waterfront land (also "reclaimed" from businesses - warehouses, etc that were torn down during urban renewal.)  Entire downtown neighborhoods were demolished that could have been revitalized and reclaimed through historic restoration.  Instead we have stadiums and arenas, parking garages and parking lots.

Just sayin...shortsighted planning is what is causing the issue downtown.  Not First Baptist Church.  (And, no , I"m not a FBC member.)

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh you agree that consolidated played a role in Jacksonville's urban decline, do you?

Well I'm honored to agree with both of you.

[Tacachale]

There are some interesting ideas here, but the idea that you could limit the First Baptist Church's influence to a two-block radius just isn't workable. The FBC's influence isn't just direct (eg the Senior Pastor getting up and saying "We support/disapprove of such-and-such a measure"). You might could put reins on that, but you'd never counter their indirect influence, such as the influence of businesspeople, politicians, and other prominent citizens who are congregants of FBC or are otherwise amenable to their views. And that's not to mention the even more indirect influence of the church's reputation. I recently spoke to a local venue owner who said she wouldn't even look downtown for space, because she didn't want to deal with First Baptist.

Placing a restriction on where the First Baptist Church can weigh in on an issue would do nothing to actually counter their influence beyond that area.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

FBC has been downtown for 100 years.  They were downtown when we had a vital downtown.  I don't think FBC is the problem you imagine it to be.

whilte they're definitely not the only problem--and possibly not even the main one--their political influence (and landownership, assuming those are even different things) has been steadily growing over that 100 years, with the result that they're a lot more poweful now than they were when any ov us were born.

[ronchamblin]

Boy ….. looks like this thread has entered for a spell into the FBC subject.  But …. Ralph W. -  you’ve covered quite some territory, about seven or so aspects, most of which I find agreeable.  The reason I suggested the two-block limit of influence for the FBC is because I do respect the church, its members, and their mission.  Even though I am a non-church person, my respect urges me to suggest sufficient space for keeping any unsuitable non-church entities at bay, such as bars, pool halls, sleazy motels, and secular bookstores.   The suggestion of the perhaps generous two-block limit of influence is so that any attempt to exceed it would be immediately obvious to all so that opposition could begin if desired.  I agree with Tacachale that any possible influence or control does not have to be direct and obvious. 

Debbie, I hope I didn’t convey that I thought the FBC was a problem regarding the downtown effort to revitalize.  I was offering the fact of how large a part of the north bank city core is occupied by the FBC.  I wanted to suggest that the scenario presents a "potential" condition of unreasonable control, by way of the probability that many members may be in political positions, and other positions of influence in the city.

As for me at the present time, I cannot say with conviction that the FBC is excessively influencing what goes on in the city core; and this, simply because I am ignorant.  I do not know what goes on under the radar or behind the scenes.   For all I know the church might be a real problem to downtown revitalization.  But it may not.

Although I’ve heard of certain controlling efforts in the past, we would have to do research, or contact those who were there to discuss any unreasonable influences of the church over city issues that should favor all citizens, and not partial to the FBC, or its members.  But even if there were in the past some attempts at unreasonable control, the current pastor or members may not be inclined to attempt control or influence. 

Anyone suggesting that an entity as large as the FBC did not have some influence over the city would be out of touch with reality.  The important question would be how much is the influence, and how much of it is good for the city core development, and how much is bad.

To move away from the FBC subject - we can talk all day, for years, about the problems, about solutions, about directions; but until there exists in this scenario an effective entity that has the capability to initiate “action” toward our goals, we will continue to have stagnation, or at least, very little progress.  I’m not sure what is happening in the mayor’s office regarding the new group heading up the downtown initiative.  Wouldn’t it be exciting if the mayor would assign a Czar or Dictator to force agreement, and action; simply telling the city council to back off for a spell?  Dream on.

I will end with the opinion that a city is a secular entity, and must have the freedom to evolve according to the needs and wants of those who invest in, live in, work in, shop in, and visit the city.  A church is a religious entity, given to controlling in small measure, its members, and perhaps its immediate environment.  City = Freedom by nature.  Church = Control by necessity.  Really, they don’t mix well.   

I only offer contemplations on possibilities; and this, to assist us, the independents in the city, the worker bees, to be on guard and ready to oppose those who may attempt to place restrictions on our freedoms as we attempt to create a downtown having the vibrancy we desire and deserve.   

Problem I. D. â€" options for solution â€" agreement â€" action  (We seldom get to the last two)