Hemming Park Problem

[thelakelander]

Agreed Lake.  But the peope addressing the park problem are also interested in, and pushing for, short term solutions.  The long term solutions are indeed simple, because they can be planned and initiated in good time.  The short term solutions become a little complex because of the various issues such as how the short term actions might conflict and sometimes hinder the long term solutions.

This would probably be my suggestions towards short and long term solutions for Hemming Plaza.


Short term: (0-2 years):

1. Focus on adding amenities verses trying to rid the park of the people who are there now.

2. Coordinate with JEDC, Mayor's Office, Council, DVI, COJ Special Events, etc. for continuous programming of events.

3. Modify public policy to allow for the addition of mobile food truck vendors.

4. Work with JTA to allow vendor kiosks at skyway station.

5. Either reopen existing restrooms or install something like the Portland Loo in Hemming.

6. Secure retail/dining operation in old Shelby's Coffeehouse space that spills its operations out into the sidewalk fronting Laura Street.

7. Modify public policy to encourage surrounding property owners to interact with the sidewalk frontage surrounding Hemming.

8. Install a small playground somewhere along the edge (Monroe or Duval) to attract more diversity into the space.


Long term: (+2 years):

1. COJ should reconfigure City Hall and City Hall Annex to once again include retail/dining uses that spill out into Hemming's north border.

2. Add a permanent anchor in the park that's open 7 days a week (ex. small restaurant, bike shop, information center, etc.).

3. Open a day center somewhere on the edge of downtown.

4. Consider losing a good chunk of the concrete and replacing it with greenery. 

Maybe it's just me but Hemming Park like the revitalization of downtown in general seems so simple to me, based on what has worked and failed in other communities, as well as Jax, the last half century.  The most difficult part isn't the short or long term solutions, it's getting stakeholders to focus on the anything other than vagrants and the homeless (both of which exist in every single major downtown in America).

[Jaxson]

Several meetings have been held during the past few weeks about the problem of Hemming Plaza.  I’ve attended some of the meetings, and have been asked to be a part of a subcommittee charged with the purpose of recommending a solution to the problem.  There is a meeting today, Wednesday afternoon.  I have written some thoughts below so that I might clarify my position on the park problem.  Given the difficulty of the park problem, I might give this material to the meeting group, perhaps modified according to input from my MJ friends, instead of attempting to convey it via speaking, as it is somewhat long. In any case, I would appreciate any criticism of my views about the park problem.  You can even be brutal.  Our objective is to finally solve the park problem with action, instead of simply talking about the problem every year.   
 
What is the problem?  The park was designed and built to be used by all citizens.  There is a segment of the population which cannot use the park because of the overwhelming and continual presence of another segment of the population.  I shall call this latter segment the “habitual occupiers”.  The excluded segment, those prevented from using the park, is made up of the local workers who might wish to use the park for lunch and breaks, many city core residents who might wish to relax in the park, and city core visitors who might wish to visit the park. 

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance.  A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black.  However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.

How do the habitual occupiers actually prevent others from using the park?  The overwhelming presence of 70 to 100 individuals making up any kind of a homogenous group, no matter the color or kind of organization, is intimidating to most potential park visitors.  And too, the fact that all of the tables and benches are already taken up by the habitual occupiers is enough to turn a potential park visitor away.       

It has been suggested that if the park were to be programed with events or activities every day, then the event alone would solve the problem simply because the habitual occupiers could be easily asked to move out so that the event could proceed.  This would be somewhat effective as long as the momentum of events could be maintained.  However, people must work, so it is unlikely that weekday events could be maintained.  It seems feasible however that activities and events on weekends might be maintained for a while.  But what happens when the momentum or interest subsides after several months of programming weekend activities?  The park will again be overwhelmed by the same set of occupiers.  I suggest that the programming of the park should be instituted for the weekends, but in conjunction with other actions discussed herein.  These several actions will together result in solving the park problem.

The unreasonable, overwhelming, excessive, and habitual daily occupation of the park by the same set of occupiers, which results in preventing other citizens from using the park, should give the city and its citizens the right to take actions which will remove these habitual occupiers.  However, the actions taken must be of a kind which does not infringe on their rights.  The park is after all open to all citizens.

The pressure to affect removal of the current set of habitual occupiers must come from several fronts.  There are programs in effect which attempt to assist some of these individuals so that they might achieve a better living situation.  Each individual removed in this manner is to be celebrated as the best method of solving the problem.  But this is a long term approach, and some of the habitual occupiers will not respond to this kind of assistance.  It has been suggested that the city provide some kind of “day center” so that these individuals, some being homeless, will have a place to bathe, read, use computers, etc.  Currently their day center consists of the library and Hemming Park.  This is not good for the city core. 

The short term approach of enforcing the current set of park rules, along with the creation of some new rules, is perhaps one of the potentially most effective methods of decreasing the park population.  Strict and aggressive enforcement of park rules will result in the banning of individuals from the park, which over time will decrease the park population to a level which will not offer the intimidating scenario which prevents other citizens from entering the park.  The banned individuals will of necessity find other places to loiter.  They will tire of being harassed and banned by the park officers, and some will find other things to do, other places to hang out.

As the park occupier population decreases to a reasonable level, the park image will be less intimidating to the potential visitor.  It is quite calming and pleasing to see the occasional game of chess in the park, the discussion of several individuals, the couple eating lunch, or sitting with their child, the old man warming in the sun.  And any classic park must have the beautiful oak trees, as they alone offer great beauty to the park visitor, whether they are in the park or observing it from a distance.

As little as possible should be changed in the park, as it is quite beautiful.  Any diseased trees should be replaced with young trees.  Any ledges not conducive to visual needs for park enforcement could be modified or removed.  Although it might be necessary to remove certain tables and benches for some reason, to remove many of these functional conveniences only admits that we are changing the park, degrading it, because we are impatient to solve the problems by creative and effective methods. 

The park design, including any changes, should be performed for the long term, anticipating its use by many of the citizens who will eventually be able to use the park as we succeed in decreasing the current population of occupiers to a reasonable level.  To destroy the beauty or classic function of the park in an attempt to solve the current problem would be a shame, and would be wasteful of funds, time, and energy.  We need to make small adjustments to the park, not radical changes in an effort to solve a problem which should be solved by other methods.  No matter what we do to the park, including removing all of the conveniences and trees so that it is bare lawn, if we do not enforce the rules, the same set of habitual occupiers will continue to occupy, standing in the park, talking, cursing, fighting, selling drugs, and intimidating the average citizen who would like to be in the park.

To see two or three dozen citizens enjoying the park, sitting on benches, playing chess at the tables, sunning on the ledges, relaxing alone on a bench, is calming and adds to the essence and beauty of a park.  The occasional word or conversation with a stranger can be a very pleasant experience.  However, to look upon the park and see several crowds or homogeneous groups, standing, all day, appearing to have taken control of the park, is intimidating.  It is unfair to those who wish to use the park for a brief period, which is how it should be used, and not as a daytime camp, an all-day occupation for those who cannot see, and perhaps do not care, how they are destroying one of our city core’s best attributes, and how their very presence is hindering our efforts to revitalize our downtown.  Currently, the park is a negative for the city core.  We must make it a positive. 

Along with the strict enforcement of the existing park rules, and the initiation of some new rules, perhaps the mayor could have a face to face talk with the current set of occupiers.  Along with preparing them for upcoming aggressive enforcement of new rules, he could convince some of them to respect the purpose of the park, and the other citizens who wish to use it.  He could explain to them the negative image they are creating, and how they are making it much more difficult to revitalize the city core.  Perhaps he could explain how the much needed revitalization success will provide more jobs so that they will not feel it necessary to loiter in the park all day.  Perhaps we could engage some of these individuals with conversation about a solution so that some of them will assist in achieving it.         

Firstly, as a black citizen, I am not offended by the above comments.  I, however, believe that he is using kid gloves when addressing a common fear among people of all races.  We already have had Jesse Jackson say that even he has crossed the street to void blacks who appeared threatening or intimidating (Even Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, "I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved." - http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2007/01/04/a_christmas_story_--_in_the_mall_parking_lot/page/full/)  There is going to be a racial component to this because there are a few bad apples who make it difficult for us to loolk beyond color when considering crime and safety.  I routinely wear shirt and tie, but have noticed that white couples tend to grab each other or hold hands immediately when I walk toward them on the street.  If you have seen me in person, I am one of the least likely to try something crazy like that in public.  Even more threatening in many people's minds is when they see a large group of young black men in public (See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120131215631AALpldk).  It is what it is, folks...

I appreciate the honesty of dialogue on this web site.  I hope that political correctness, however, does not shame us into mincing our words.

[sheclown]

I have just never had any problem there granted I am Six Four and male. I just think the crowd isn't the problem because based on activities at the time you see the crowd change.

me too.  only not the six four/male part.

[sheclown]

great suggestions Lake.

[ronchamblin]

Great incoming feedback and ideas.  I'm still working so I'll just convey a little about the meeting, which went for 1.5 hours, with about twelve present.  Our objective was to arrive at some agreements on decisions about whether to remove all or some of the tables and chairs, whether to increase the JSO efforts in the park, etc etc.

Some amount of time was used to discuss whether or not the removal of some or all of the tables and benches would result in a decrease in the excessive occupation of the park by the usual individuals.  Actually, the vote on this issue seemed to waiver back and forth, ending with the idea of experimenting with the removal of some of the table sets, especially in the northeast corner.

Another project was to initiate a survey to be tendered to all individuals in the park so that we could determine use characteristics helpful to arriving at solutions.  A similar survey was conducted by the Salzbacher center several years ago. 

An additional survey, seeking opinions from the surrounding businesses and other entities is also to be initiated, asking them what they want to see in the park, desired changes etc.

The JSO officer at the meeting got a lot of flak about the apparent non-aggressive behavior of the officers in the park.  Enforcement of the existing rules was highly suggested as a method of solution, as this might allow for the banning of certain individuals for one year each, thus gradually decreasing the park population over time.

But....... I am anxious to review everyone's posts tonight so I can digest them all.  We are to have next week a final (I think) meeting within which we will sort out the final recommendations.  Overall I am not too encouraged by the results of meetings so far, although we've made some progress. 

[downtownjag]

This is all, in my opinion, way over thought. Not to mention the "I've never had a problem there" argument is downplaying and avoiding the obvious issues. I'd like to know, based on Ron's comment, what laws are already in place but perhaps unenforced. Finally, I would argue till blue in the face that there is a huge difference between a majority of little old ladies, indie rock, suits, etc and the population that's there now. COME ON.

[thelakelander]

Removing seats and tables is a horrible idea.  How diverse is this committee in terms of race, culture, profession, and age?  Is there an urban planner on the committee suggesting that removing amenities is a sound principle for enhancing the area?  Seems like the committee is still suck in the same mode of thinking that has led to downtown becoming a smoldering failure over the last 40 years, despite billions invested into it.  Making the park more hostile to all by removing amenities only solidifies its ability to not be attractive to anyone other than vagrants.  If focusing on making it a fun place with a mix of amenities that appeal to a wide variety of people isn't going to be done, then the simple solution is to put up a fence and keep everyone out.  That would certainly solve the "problem" and be in line with many of the past decisions made regarding downtown.

[JeffreyS]

Well I guess I knew in the end the answer was going to be let's make the area worse to see if it makes the area more white. Rip out a little more of Jacksonville's amenities to solve a problem that does not even exist. I know you have convinced yourself it is not about race but I suggest some more soul searching. I will still use the on e or twice a month untill there is no place to sit.

[fieldafm]

It was actually voted to remove tables and benches... From a park?!  Who is on this task force and when is the next meeting?

[peestandingup]

I agree with Lake. Was gonna post something similar, but then I though "why bother"?? Meaning, if you guys debated for hours about removing tables/chairs & ramping up law enforcement in a public park, then you've already failed.

Concentrate on the bigger picture here & stop trying to micro-manage all of these symptoms that were brought on by the failed downtown policies & over-management. If not, then please for the sake of the city get out of the way & let some urban planners with experience (not all of it in Jax) do it for you. Because this is embarrassing.

[Ralph W]

How about at the next meeting, Ron comes up with the audacious idea of tripling the number of chairs, benches and tables in the park?

If you want someone other than the habitual occupiers to visit the park then there should at least be ample places to sit down to enjoy their surroundings, watch the daily show put on by their "counterparts", eat a sandwich and drink a beverage without having to fumble or just read the book newly purchased from Ron's bookstore.

The more egregious of the "occupiers" can be quickly and quietly removed by the police for ignoring existing rules/laws. Many say that the police should be walking the beat rather than riding. Just one in the park, all day, without parking his car on the sidewalk, would go a long way.

A few more trash receptacles as well as a responsible park custodian would help, too.

[ThugBilt]

This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core.  In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here.  The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building.  These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments.  The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?

Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along.  There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them. 

[deathstar]

I had a bum asking me for a dollar when I came out of Riverside Publix one day. Then later on in the same day there was a weirdo giving me grief on the Riverwalk and thankfully Officer Duckworth drove up in the golf cart and he started talking to him instead. Then a couple days later on a trek through Main Street, and really I should know better, I stopped to make a phone call by a gas station and when they all saw me on my iPhone, a few approached me and kept staring until I walked away while still on the phone. Awkward every single time.

[thelakelander]

This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core.  In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here.  The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building.  These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments.  The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?

Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along.  There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.

A public restroom would also go a long way in reducing urine in alleys.

[sheclown]

This whole "race issue" is a "straw man argument"; the simple fact is that the homeless and vagrant situation downtown is a *serious* impediment to the revitalization of the core.  In all the time I've lived downtown it is by far the most commonly cited reason why friends and acquaintances are reluctant to even visit downtown, much less make a huge wager by moving here.  The alley behind our building reeks of urine, there is frequently feces on the sidewalk, my girlfriend and son are routinely hassled and frightened by clearly deranged homeless people while walking in and out of our building.  These are not "suits" nor "grannies", so really, knock it off with all the straw man arguments.  The same goes for the preposterous "I live downtown and have never been attacked by them" line. I drive a car every day but haven't had a fatal accident; does that mean that fatal accidents are not real?

Bottom line: Whats needed in Hemming Plaza, and downtown in general, are cops that will move these people along.  There are laws against loitering and vagrancy, we simply need enforcement of them.

A public restroom would also go a long way in reducing urine in alleys.

Agreed.  And it is the only humane thing to do to solve this problem for both the people without resources and those with them.