Replacing chairs and cutting down trees to cost $100k for Hemming Plaza

[thelakelander]

I'm still trying to figure out how this is supposed to enhance the park to get more people to visit it on a regular basis.  I don't know why the park would need to be closed to do any of this but here are the big ticket items for the $100,000k short term plan intended to improve the park.

$18,000 for removing 20 trees.

$30,000 for DVI to hire and employ someone to lock up chairs everyday.

$50,000 for replacing some fixed benches with removable tables and chairs.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-03-30/story/hemming-plaza-fix-price-could-start-100000-advisory-group-says

[avonjax]

We may live in the dumbest city in America.

[jcjohnpaint]

And I'm starting to think the dumbest country as well. 

[Fallen Buckeye]

I was in Hemming Park for one of those protests the other day, and personally I was glad to have the shade. It was burning up. They need to leave well enough alone. What about putting that $100,000 towards that Homeless Day Resource Center or actually using it to help these people get back on their feet?

[ronchamblin]

To remove some ailing trees makes sense.  To relocate some tables for a “spreading” effect, or to remove selected tables and chairs might make some sense.  However, when I heard that the intention is to gradually replace all of the permanent table / chair units with lightweight removable units, I walked out of the meeting today, not wanting to be a part of the process.  I’m out.  Kaput.  Gone from the Hemming Park meetings.  I have work to do.   

Photos were presented showing the damaged tables and chairs, not giving a thought to repair or replacement of the sturdy and solid older units.  Clearly the decision has already been made to replace the permanent solid table / chair units with lightweight removable units, to be chained up when not being used.

This removable table / chair unit plan is supposed to decrease the “gathering” tendency of the problem occupiers.  The plan is to have no tables and chairs present in the park in the early and mid-morning periods, nor in the mid-to-late afternoon, so that the unwanted elements will not have a place to “commandeer”.  In other words, the hope is that the unwanted element will not come into the park to “take over” an area if there are not tables and chairs for them to gather around.

This move is a partial destruction of the park, a removal of amenities and conveniences for “all” visitors, thereby insuring that some potential visitors will avoid the park.  This is a case wherein frustrated committee members are intent on “doing something”, even if it is wrong, so that the effective solutions don’t have to be addressed for the moment.

We will see.  And when the “problem” remains, along with the decreased attractiveness and functionality of the park, I will smile as I see the same “unwanted elements” gathering in the park, much as they do now.

The solution of course is to “take’em out”, to eliminate the unwanted elements with sniper fire competition, gaming one might say, using retired army snipers or perhaps currently inactive serial killers, hooded of course, who lack targets for the moment.  We could make it more interesting by positioning the snipers at least three full blocks away, thereby forcing the unwanted elements to seek safety in the center of the park, as the geometry of the scenario would offer targets only on the park edges.  This could be very interesting, much like our long gone ancestors of Roman times who enjoyed watching the lions devour Christians and other unfortunates.     


But……… seriously, we need to address the difficult but long term solutions, ones which avoid destroying the most attractive attributes of the park.  Several MJ posters have talked about these solutions before.  And they are positive, not destructive to the park, nor to the “unwanted elements”. 

What of the following positive moves, which we’ve apparently forgotten about, to gradually decrease the “habitual” park population?  How about more active and aggressive long-term assistance from existing facilities for selected “park” individuals who are willing to respond to it?  Some might actually get on their feet and out of the park.  How about more programming of the park to “take back” areas as the events and activities are ongoing?  How about a day center of some kind, at the right location?  How about aggressive encouragement of neighboring workers to eat in the park, or to have meetings the park, thereby again taking over the formerly “occupied” territories from the unwanted elements? 

And this is not so positive, but how about aggressive enforcement of the park rules so that gradually those who are the most undesirable in the park can be banned from the park.  This alone would gradually reduce the park’s unwanted element population considerably over time.

I’ve said before that we should envision the most beautiful park, the most welcoming park, for all visitors, and we should make it so.  Beautiful live oaks and welcoming solid benches, tables and chairs add to the ambience and function of a park.  Destroying the park for some, destroys it for all.  But yes, by some means or machinations, remove the unwanted elements via positive, or even negative and aggressive steps, but do not remove the attributes which make the park beautiful and welcoming.               

[thelakelander]

I just don't see how a single thing on the short term list of "improvements" is actually an "improvement" that attracts people to spend time in the park.  It appears the focus of the group is clearly to get rid of the people who currently use it and they are willing to make it worse for everyone to achieve that goal.  Worse, they are willing to spend lots of public money to make it happen.  We have all the potential in the world but we clearly continue to be downtown's worst enemy.  It's getting to a point where people who don't want any money "wasted" downtown are starting to have a valid argument.

[ronchamblin]

I just don't see how a single thing on the short term list of "improvements" is actually an "improvement" that attracts people to spend time in the park.  It appears the focus of the group is clearly to get rid of the people who currently use it and they are willing to make it worse for everyone to achieve that goal.  Worse, they are willing to spend lots of public money to make it happen.  We have all the potential in the world but we clearly continue to be downtown's worst enemy.  It's getting to a point where people who don't want any money "wasted" downtown are starting to have a valid argument.

You're making the good sense Lake.  I like to go for the ideal, or to the max on things like this,  a view that occasionally gets me in trouble, as it sometimes ignores subtle realities which, although small, can bring good results.  Therefore I am inclined to sweep aside any attempts to limit the park's attractiveness, and to go to the "max" for making the park "ideal", a park which could be a statement of excellence, which will be a continual draw to all people entering the area.

In my view, replacing the solid table / chair units with lightweight units which surely will "wiggle" when sat upon, and project a scene of cheapness, is not a move to maximize the park's function and beauty.  Who wants to see a stack of tables / chairs, plastic or PVC tables, along the park?  Who wants to request a table / chair be set out for use?  Who wants to visit the park for a moment, to sit upon a table at 3:00 p.m., and find them locked up?  Who wants to spend the money to achieve mediocrity and partially destructive results, when there are solid positives to work upon?  Who wants to pay people to move tables and chairs every day of the year?

BTW, I just received an email from someone, bashing me for my comment above about the Christians being fed to the lions in Roman times.  I don't find it humorous to reflect upon those times of persecution.  My point was that the event of the sniper competition to clear the park, admittedly a bit of cynicism, and of course offered in a joking manner, would in some ways be similar to the historical event of the Christians being fed to the lions.... if that is in fact true.  I must find somewhere a book of the era and check it out. 

Any park action taken should be to resolve the unwanted element problem via solid, long term moves, because these people will come, and will commandere the park, no matter if the tables and chairs are there or not.  We must look to the long run, to a point after which the "problem" is finally solved by whatever means.  After that point, will we have the partially destroyed park, or will we have the ideal and beautiful park which will offer enjoyment for anyone who comes into the area? 

[strider]

To all those that know that this proposal is not the fix downtown needs but rather the death knoll for the park, I will remind you that this still has to go in front of city council.  You have an army of people who use the park regularly, whether you like all of them or not, who also have the right to speak for 3 minutes at city council. Walking out of meetings while it is easier on you lets the others win.  Only by getting in their faces and telling them loud and clear that they are wrong will you ever be able to beat them.

The improvements to this park as listed do exactly what they want them too.  It moves a group of people they do not want to see out of the park.  While it is said not to be racially motivated, it is most certainly social economically motivated and that is just as bad.

The correct fixes to the real problem have been mentioned on this forum.  Everyone knows what they are and knows also that they would be the right things to do. However, they are not easy and they do not eliminate that group of people quickly enough, so here we are.   

The actions being proposed have nothing to do making with downtown better, they are indeed all about prosecuting a section of the population that uses the park. 

If downtown matters to you, you know what you have to do.  Do you have the courage to do it?

[sheclown]

We could mothball a lot of historic structures with 100k   What a freakin' waste of money. 

[ronchamblin]

Admittedly, walking out of the meeting was somewhat cowardly, but that's my nature, as I am not a good speaker.  But too, my walking out was a statement that something is not all good, fuzzy and agreeable with the situation of the park project.  This is the beginning of my probable exit of all meetings about downtown.  Does anybody care?  Don't give a damn.  I have work to do. 

I am concerned about downtown however, and about the park, and will continue to use whatever assets I have -- money, work, and, mental exercises (thought) to assist ultimately in its improvement.  I will, if permitted, continue to offer my opinions on MJ, and perhaps send emails to individuals who happen to be "involved" and open to receiving emails on certain subjects.

[Fallen Buckeye]

Get enough people to walk out, and they wouldn't have a quorum to be able to do business.

[strider]

Admittedly, walking out of the meeting was somewhat cowardly, but that's my nature, as I am not a good speaker.  But too, my walking out was a statement that something is not all good, fuzzy and agreeable with the situation of the park project.  This is the beginning of my probable exit of all meetings about downtown.  Does anybody care?  Don't give a damn.  I have work to do. 

I am concerned about downtown however, and about the park, and will continue to use whatever assets I have -- money, work, and, mental exercises (thought) to assist ultimately in its improvement.  I will, if permitted, continue to offer my opinions on MJ, and perhaps send emails to individuals who happen to be "involved" and open to receiving emails on certain subjects.

I do not think that walking out of that meeting was cowardly.  Perhaps not the best tactic but if you were cowardly, you would not have been there to start with.   I fully understand why one walks in cases like that.  I have done the same in the past, but then learned to regret it.  However, none of that  changes what must be done, does it?  The question becomes, are you the one to do it?

[Ernest Street]

Of course the table and chair contract won't be bidded out...rather automatically awarded to Presentation Resources.

[urbanlibertarian]

This proposal is all "stick" and no "carrot".  It attempts to punish the "undesirables" and offers no improvements to the "desirables" to attract them.  Also why can't ailing trees be replaced instead of removed?

[Ralph W]

It's not the chairs and tables that bring out the undesirables but the location. If ALL the chairs and tables are removed they will just sit on the planters and the ground, continuing as if nothing happened.

You can't shoot them, can't feed them to the lions and certainly can't intimidate them with stern looks and mousy rhetoric. $30 grand a year, perpetually, for a table and chair monitor is stupid. Cheap fold-ups are stupid. How many of these removable chairs will end up down by the creek or on the next block? How often will they need to be replaced because of theft or damage. Extra insurance might be needed because someone will fall over and blame it on the cheap chairs.

I still think that the number of permanent, sturdy benches, chairs and tables should be at least doubled and, of course, spread out throughout the park. Then, aggressive police presence (there are enough officers in the general area to cover the manpower need) to really enforce park rules and general interpersonal etiquette would go a long way in reducing so-called undesirables. That, and the perusal of other avenues to otherwise occupy and amuse the "homeless" away from the park.

Park maintenance should be ongoing and not just a knee jerk response to the sky is falling. Unsafe tree limbs should always be addressed in a timely fashion. If the park is dingy there should be an ongoing effort with pressure washers, brooms or leaf blowers as well is the pruning and pickup always needed to keep a place looking spiffy.

Next year there is going to be a huge art undertaking throughout the area. How do you think we are going to entice artists to participate and the voting public to wander about downtown enjoying the art and voting on the mega prizes? Where are the venues? Which businesses are going to sign up to host the artists? Ron, are you in on this and will you host displays in and in front of your business? Making the center of downtown a no man's land just because our leadership cannot seem to get a handle on perceived problems foretells disaster for Dr. Wood's vision.