Hemming Park Problem

[mtraininjax]

Wake up - Jacksonville has to stop treating only the symptoms and start treating the disease.

Sounds good, who wants to pass the hat? Or go to Alvin and he'll tell you, OK, where do I cut from? What service do I cut to make some other group unhappy? Another round of police and fire cuts? Without enough funding, social services will always be a problem lurking in the background. Sad to say, but if an epidemic breaks out, then that becomes the issue to fix for that day.

Still waiting on the master plan for Jacksonville from Alvin, I still don't think he has one.

[strider]

Social services are often a place where a public/ private partnership can work.  Also, sometimes it is just a matter of allowing something and the private sector can pay for it.  Like sober living facilities and even low income housing.  Many smaller non-profits are totally self sustaining without receiving any outside assistance.

However, I was more referring to the idea that moving the unwanted was treating a symptom while getting real downtown development or street car might just be treating the disease.

[fieldafm]

When is the next public comment on this issue???

As long as it isn't the week of March 5th, I will certainly make an appearance.

[fieldafm]

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/02/defense-loitering/1313/

In Defense of Loitering
Not long after American inner cities started to empty of street life in the 1960s and 70s, government officials went for the benches. Benches encourage people to sit still. And sitting still is a quasi-crime in urban America commonly known as “loitering.” You may recognize its related anti-social behaviors: standing still, milling about and strolling a little too slowly.

It’s hard to remember how we got here, to criminalizing a leisurely pursuit that’s embraced on most European streets. But the cycle went something like this: Residents moved out of cities and stopped using their public spaces and streets. The only people still walking them were deemed riffraff: the homeless, jobless and, officials feared, gang members and prostitutes.

And so cities took away the benches (or made them un-sittable) and put up signs warning of anti-loitering fines. We went to great lengths to discourage the wrong people from hanging around, but this of course discouraged everyone else as well.

“It’s almost like we created a word that celebrates the fact that we’ve forgotten how to design cities,” says Dan Burden, the executive director of the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. “When we can create a place that’s so void of human life because people don’t want to go there, then this natural surveillance that occurs when people feel comfortable going there and watching over it themselves disappears.”

The problem is inherent in the word itself: loitering. The exact same activity â€" casual strolling, sitting, gathering in public â€" should be an active goal of cities known by another name: lingering.

Burden travels around North America preaching the distinction between these two terms (and Canadian communities get it much more than American ones do, he says). We should be celebrating street life, not discouraging it. And this shift in mindset requires a fundamental shift in vocabulary, too.

“We’ve gotten so bad,” Burden says, “there are towns I go to that I can’t find a single place that I feel comfortable lingering in because it just feels like I’m doing something where everybody will say ‘why is that guy sitting there?’”

And Burden looks suspiciously like he might be an aging hippie.

Anti-loitering ordinances (designed with aging hippies, gang members and bums in mind) have been created by communities over the years with varying degrees of dubious legality. They often appear to provide cover to police for not-so-subtle racial profiling. And they’ve been written with vague prohibitions against such shady activity as “remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose.” Ordinances, though, are just one tactic. Removing street furniture â€" or putting in only awful examples of it â€" can work just as well.

Lingering, on the other hand, is both a means to an end and a desirable end in itself. People who linger create vibrant public places and welcoming streetscapes. They also increase the safety of an area, with more eyes on the street. And leisurely foot traffic can lead to more street commerce, more connected communities, and spontaneous exchanges.

“The great thoughts, the great ideas that sprout really come form the street, where people are seeing things, where they bump into other people,” Burden says. “Einstein used to say that his best ideas came on his walk home from the university every day.”

Look at the most famous scenes, Burden adds, in celebrated photos, paintings and books. They often involve people in public places… lingering.

When Burden talks about this idea, he likes to show groups this older photo he took in Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon. He likes to point to the guy on the bench at the left:



Just look at him. He’s got a tattoo. His shirt is nowhere to be seen. He looks like he might not have a job to attend to at this particular moment. And yet he’s surrounded by all these classy ladies in skirts.

“He’s totally outnumbered,” Burden says. “I think that’s the point.”

Maybe the guy is an outlier, and if the square were full of partially clothed characters like him, some of the other people in this image might not be comfortable sitting here. As a society, though, it’s possible we have a greater capacity to accommodate social outliers in our midst than we think. It’s OK if benches draw bums. Because if they also draw enough workers at lunchtime and moms with strollers, there's room for everyone.

A lot of West Coast cities, Burden says, are grasping this. And rejuvenated public places like the High Line and Bryant Park in New York are great examples, as well. But in other communities, like Detroit, he says we’ll need to start by creating “oases” for lingering, and build out from there.

“Until we change the vocabulary,” Burden says, “then we’ll know we haven’t gotten there yet. The last loitering sign I see in America, I want to photograph it and say ‘this is it.’ Maybe the new signs will say ‘please linger.’”

[Dog Walker]

Dan Burden lives here in Florida and is one of the most original thinkers about urban design you will ever meet.

The N.E. Florida Sierra Club had him up for a seminar a few years ago and invited all of the planning departments in North Florida to attend.  It was packed.  The participants kept having "Ah Hah" moments and a lot of his thinking has subsequently shown up in their designs.

His ideas are simple, practical and always make you wonder why you didn't think of them first.  That's the sure sign of a genius.

[ronchamblin]

I expect another meeting on Hemming in a week or two.  During the last meeting, there was a weak consensus to make a recommendation to remove all tables and chair sets from the park, to purchase new lightweight tables and chairs, chain them at the west end of the park, and place them in the park each day between… say… 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.  The benches will remain, but will be dispersed to decrease the image of a group commandeering the park.

I questioned the removal of the tables and chairs, and since the meeting, my opinion against their removal has become stronger.  I consider that the table removal decision is being done partially so that some can say.. “At least we’ve done something.”..  which is certainly not a good reason to do anything.

By removing the tables and chairs, we are destroying certainly the function and charm of the park.  I had hoped to avoid this somewhat radical step, as I look upon it as a partial destruction of the park’s essence, a move that will make the park less attractive to the potential park visitor.  We should envision the ideal park, as it would in the future be desired and enjoyed by all citizens, and then strive to achieve that vision.  We should look forward to when the park will have a very practical need for these tables and chairs, when we have accomplished, by more realistic and less damaging methods, a reasonable occupier population.  We should not attempt to make the park undesirable for any population segment by destroying its utility, charm, and beauty, because doing so will make it undesirable for the entire population.

Two actions will bring immediate relief to the park problem.  One is to enforce the rules so that the troublemakers and illegals can gradually be banned from the park.  Over time this action will improve the average behavior of all individuals in the park, therefore making the park less intimidating to anyone wishing to enter the park. 

I have noticed a decrease already in the occupier population since the JSO officers have been consistently engaging the park during the last two weeks?  One of the homeless fellows said that the troublemakers and the drug dealers feel uncomfortable with the JSO in the park, so they have gone elsewhere, many to the Main street park near the library. 

The second thing we can do is to program the park with events and activities.  Also, a possible method of increasing the mix in the park, is to ask all area businesses to encourage workers to take their lunches into the park.  This should be an active and continual effort.       
 
But, regarding the tables and chairs, I asked the committee what would happen if a visiting family with a couple of kids was sitting at one of these proposed temporary tables when 2:30 arrived.  The reaction was that the family could sit there as long as they wished.  But what if, at the table, was a couple of the occupier types?  Things could become a little awkward if there was a visiting family sitting at a table, and the next table was being used by a habitual occupier, and the officer informed only the latter that the tables are to be chained at 2:30 p.m.

I asked what would happen if an out-of-town family wandered into the park at 3:30 p.m.  This family would most likely assume that only the benches were available.  I suppose that if they wanted to sit at a table, then someone would then set up the tables.  I suppose that if the party requesting the use of a table and chair set was perceived to be an undesirable, then they would be informed that the tables and chairs are set up only for the lunch hours.  The temporary table scenario will require loads of discretionary decisions from anyone in charge of the park.  All of this will go on as there are dozens of occupier types standing around and sitting on the ledges.     

On Thursday, a friend and me ate lunch at one of the tables in the northeast corner.  It was nice, with people all around.  The wind was blowing.  Our table was solid, and the chairs too.  I wondered how the proposed removable tables and chairs would feel, and if the wind would blow them over.  I thought… how nice it was to see all the people in the park…. how interesting……. how honest…. how beautiful.  And I thought about how odd it would look in the future, when and if the tables are gone, to see all these same people standing around in small groups, having been deprived of tables.
   
With the tables gone, there is nothing to prevent individuals from playing cards and chess while sitting on the ledges around the raised areas and the fountains.  The habitual occupiers will continue to gather and group anywhere they wish, to stand in the sun, or in the shade, as it is a park open to all citizens.  And as far as I know, it will still be possible for anyone to bring into the park a table and chair set, which they could use for playing chess, cards or dominos.   
   
My position is to envision the best attributes for the park, and to build those attributes into the park, so that the park will, by these improvements, increasingly and continually be a positive draw for anyone wishing to use the park â€" workers, visitors, retirees, residents, the unemployed, the occasional homeless, and yes, the crazy individual who simply wants to relax in the park amongst the trees and people.  All the while, we should attempt to decrease the impact of the habitual occupiers by programming, rule enforcement, and the continued efforts of case workers from the various shelters and programs, to facilitate individuals to a platform of self-sufficiency.

Somewhat related to the park, I have just hired for full time work, an individual from the park who has been homeless for three years, living outside in the wild.  He will now have health care, and he can afford to have some dental work.  The primary reason I am able to hire this individual is that he has demonstrated to me excellent skills in the construction trade, and I happen to need someone with these skills.   I doubt if anyone else in the park has these skills.  I have attempted in the past to hire certain individuals from the park, but unfortunately I cannot afford the time and money to educate individuals so that they can be reasonably productive in the work world. 

How did he end up living in the woods?  He lost his house, his work truck, his tools, his bank account, all of his belongings, because of an arrogant, inept, and indifferent JSO / legal system.  This is not to say that all aspects of the JSO or the legal/court system exhibit these negative attributes.  It is however, saying that he was unfortunate in having to engage individuals within these local governmental entities who happened to possess high levels of indifference and arrogance, and low levels of competence and integrity, attributes which, perhaps because of the very nature of these governmental entities, exists more often than we deserve.    Unless this individual is hiding some surprising deficiencies which can derail the current track to recovery, he will be back on his feet within a year, with truck, tools, and his own place to live.

I have additional comments about the recent Hemming Park meeting, and will continue after some sleep. 

[Bativac]

...During the last meeting, there was a weak consensus to make a recommendation to remove all tables and chair sets from the park, to purchase new lightweight tables and chairs, chain them at the west end of the park, and place them in the park each day between… say… 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.  The benches will remain, but will be dispersed to decrease the image of a group commandeering the park.

I questioned the removal of the tables and chairs, and since the meeting, my opinion against their removal has become stronger.  I consider that the table removal decision is being done partially so that some can say.. “At least we’ve done something.”..  which is certainly not a good reason to do anything.

By removing the tables and chairs, we are destroying certainly the function and charm of the park.  I had hoped to avoid this somewhat radical step, as I look upon it as a partial destruction of the park’s essence, a move that will make the park less attractive to the potential park visitor.  We should envision the ideal park, as it would in the future be desired and enjoyed by all citizens, and then strive to achieve that vision.  We should look forward to when the park will have a very practical need for these tables and chairs, when we have accomplished, by more realistic and less damaging methods, a reasonable occupier population.  We should not attempt to make the park undesirable for any population segment by destroying its utility, charm, and beauty, because doing so will make it undesirable for the entire population.

What a terrible, short-sighted, draconian plan.

That's Jacksonville! Are there some historic buildings they can tear down while they're at it??

[thelakelander]

Lol, don't give them any ideas Bativac.  It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed.  No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming.  I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.  Furthermore, it appears that it will even cost money.  Take that cash and spend it on more amenities.  If anyone is downtown today, check the park out.  Watch how lively it will be with all the children in it and lets see if they actually use those benches and seats.

[BridgeTroll]

Ron... we have a right to know who is forming this "weak consensus".  We all should know who is trying to remove furniture from the park.

[ronchamblin]

\

Ron... we have a right to know who is forming this "weak consensus".  We all should know who is trying to remove furniture from the park.

Quote: Lakelander

“ I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.”

BT, I hope you aren’t going to assassinate these people.  The “weak consensus” is the image produced by the fact that during the recent meetings, the persuasion has flipped flopped between keeping the tables, simply dispersing them so that there might be a reduced “commandeering” appearance, and the complete removal of the tables and chairs.  The mood has frustratingly wavered back and forth.  I was rather surprised that the last meeting saw things move in the direction of removing entirely the tables and chairs. 

But, to answer your question, and I respect all of these people, the voters for the removals were basically Vicky at UPS, Jerry at La Cena, Terry at DVI, and about four others.  I sense that the fundamental complexity of the overall problem in the park has caused feelings of frustration, and therefore, some may have voted simply to get something done, whether in the end it is right or wrong. 

I suspect that if anyone were to voice a strong argument toward keeping the tables and chairs, everyone would be persuaded, such is the nature of the beast at this point.  Being a solo person, I am not good at face-to-face meetings, and therefore must attempt persuasion via writing. 

But to continue with Lake's comment, isn’t it interesting to contemplate how a decision can be made by a committee of a dozen or so intelligent individuals, a decision which, if reviewed a year later, after the consequences of it can be clearly observed, can only be viewed as a stupid decision.

In order to be fair however, if we are blame a committee for making a stupid decision, we must confirm the stupid decision was made while the committee had on the table the same resources and information as we have during our criticism of a year or two after the decision. 

There must be some flaw in the dynamics of a committee process, which can, if allowed to go unchecked, be quite influential in allowing for a committee of intelligent individuals to arrive at a stupid decision.   

Perhaps a committee can be swayed to a stupid decision by voices of influence, by persistent and high voices, by personality, by boldness, by frustration of time passing, by ignorance as to the fundamentals at work, by haste, and by one’s silence when one should speak.   
 
Can the Skyway be considered a stupid decision?  How about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core?  How about the one way streets?  How about the proposed Convention Center?  The perpetuation of the parking meters?  The removal of the park tables and chairs?  How about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core?  How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core?  How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl?  There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.

In any case, the realization that a committee can make a stupid decision gives me incentive to argue against not only the removal of the tables and chairs, but to argue against some of the other ideas proposed for the park.  But then, this attitude is quite normal, as it works toward a committee’s correct decision.     

[Bativac]

Can the Skyway be considered a stupid decision?  How about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core?  How about the one way streets?  How about the proposed Convention Center?  The perpetuation of the parking meters?  The removal of the park tables and chairs?  How about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core?  How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core?  How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl?  There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.     

I think many or most of the above items that have come to pass had negative aspects that were pointed out at the time the activities were done, and many of those negative aspects have been seen in the years since.

I don't think it takes anyone of special insight to see that if you have a public space with amenities, and you remove those amenities, you aren't going to get increased use of that space. What about in five years, when Hemming Plaza becomes empty and unused, except by the homeless people who are now on the ground, camped out? "We need to do something. Let's fence off the park."

This sounds like having a playground with too many kids in it, and the solution is to tear down the playground so the sight of so many kids doesn't scare off other kids.

But it feels so "Jacksonville." It feels right in step with the Jacksonville state of mind.

[thelakelander]

But to continue with Lake's comment, isn’t is interesting to contemplate how a decision can be made by a committee of a dozen or so intelligent individuals, a decision which, if reviewed a year later, after the consequences of it can be clearly observed, can only be viewed as a stupid decision.

In order to be fair however, if we are blame a committee for making a stupid decision, we must confirm the stupid decision was made while the committee had on the table the same resources and information as we have during our criticism of a year or two after the decision. 

There must be some flaw in the dynamics of a committee process, which can, if allowed to go unchecked, be quite influential in allowing for a committee of intelligent individuals to arrive at a stupid decision.   

Perhaps a committee can be swayed to a stupid decision by voices of influence, by persistent and high voices, by personality, by boldness, by frustration of time passing, by ignorance as to the fundamentals at work, by haste, and by one’s silence when one should speak.

The ultimate fatal flaw is most likely the committee process and the make up of the committee itself.  It appears the committee may be stocked with people who mean well and want better but lack the professional background and experience in this particular urban arena.  I don't mean that in disrespect but as a society, we specialize at certain things and when there is not enough diversity (how many actual park users are on the committee), small groups can quickly settle on concepts that do more harm than good.  Btw, this has plagued downtown Jacksonville for decades.  After 60 years of poor results, perhaps it's time to admit failure in the process and attempt to revamp it.
 

Can the Skyway be considered a stupid decision?

Depends.  Can the technology be considered stupid?  No, it works just fine.  Can the route implementation and policy making to not integrate this mode of transportation be considered stupid?  Yes.  I say yes, because there were enough examples out there at the time to illustrate how to plan successful mass transit and our own initial studies correctly suggested initial links with ridership generating anchors such as Shands.  Furthermore, I'd also say the continued decision parallel the skyway with several bus routes to the point where they compete for the same limited ridership base is also foolish and inefficient.

How about the demo decisions for certain buildings in the core?

Its good to look at these on an individual basis but on an overall level, yes.  This is once again the result of a no-collaborative process where committees are stacked with individuals who did not represent the end users or ask the community what they wanted before making significant environment impacting decisions.

How about the one way streets?

To evaluate this, you have to first understand what those who were designing one way streets were trying to achieve.  They wanted to move automobile traffic.  They succeeded.

How about the proposed Convention Center?

This one is yet to be decided.  It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on its planning process, implementation and funding.  The devil, like most subjects, is in the details.

The perpetuation of the parking meters?

With this, I'd say not listening to business owner and customer complaints on parking over the last couple of decades has been pretty foolish.  Melissa Ross asked me about this on the downtown discussion last night.  She asked how do you change things for the better?  My answer was a short and simple one.  Try actually addressing the concerns that have been expressed by many for decades instead of telling people they need to be trained. 

The removal of the park tables and chairs?

This is really foolish because we can easily evaluate peer communities that have done just this through simple google searches.  However, like many of the things you bring up, a more collaborative planning process that allows a greater cross section of community participation would stop an idea like this, dead on its tracks.

How about the lack of practical incentives for small business in the city core?  How about unwarranted incentives for corporate entry into the core?  How about excessive and extended incentives for suburban sprawl?  There are some good examples I’m sure, but I’ve not been around the core as long as some of the MJ persons.

All of these things can easily be resolved with a collaborative planning process that involves the community as a whole.  However, on the political side of things it means checking personal egos at the door.  I think the process behind the BJP is a decent local model to follow on a grand scale.  The planning department's recent visioning process was good as well.  Unfortunately, they didn't have the authorization to address downtown, which was seen as the JEDC's turf.

In any case, the realization that a committee can make a stupid decision gives me incentive to argue against not only the removal of the tables and chairs, but to argue against some of the other ideas proposed for the park.  But then, this attitude is quite normal, as it works toward a committee’s correct decision.

In you're position, the best you can do is bring logic to the table that focuses on the successes and failures of various actions being proposed that have been implemented in peer communities.  There's nothing new under the sun and nothing socially unique about Hemming Plaza's issues that a Savannah, Orlando, Charlotte, San Deigo, Nashville, etc. hasn't dealt with.  Everything considered by any committee should be properly fact checked.  If we can eliminate making policy decisions on the personal opinions of a group (our committee process in general, not just the Hemming Plaza committee) with limited representation of the community as a whole, we'll discover the solutions to many of our problems are not as difficult as we make them out to be.

[ronchamblin]

Should we take him out? ......... Moran I mean.

[Bridges]

It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed.  No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming.  I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.

This is clearly a product of the committee not truly understand (or maybe they do) what their main goal is.  If it's making the park an attraction, destination, relaxing communal space, pleasing pass through, interactive with the surrounding space in such a way that it encourages positive activity, then yes it's a horrible idea. 

However, if the main goal is to remove a certain segment of the park population, they're moving in the right direction.  Of course, this also means eliminating all other segments of the population, and the destruction of the park.  But if the end goal is no unwanted segments, then it seems this would be a logical step.

The committee makeup is determining this.  A certain member has waged a well known personal war on the current people in the park for years.  His goals couldn't seem more clear: rid the park of them at all costs, even if it means destroying the park. 

[tufsu1]

well Mr. Dare....I just had a nice conversation with Ron Chamblin, while buying some stuff at his store.....and we talked a bit about Hemming....while I have not been to one of the meetings, I do know some of the players involved.