We Love Avondale Attempts to Ruin Christmas Event

[Cheshire Cat]

Intuition, You should not have left the meeting as you were invited to participate by one of the principals in this issue.  I can tell you I am not at all pleased with the attitude of Ms. Grant.  Neither she or WLA have exclusive rights or interest in this project.  By her logic, no one should have been in the meeting if they did not own property or a business in Avondale.  I intend to find out who was in attendance and how it was decided who was allowed in and who wasn't.

It's this attitude by Ms. Grant and her cronies that is so dangerous.  Do they not realize that this type of interference sets a bad precedent for Jacksonville's future development and that is what so many people are upset about?  It's not about having a pizza place or not, it's about a business being able to open up under the current set of zoning laws (including laws that allow for variances and exemptions) that are in place without a VERY SMALL group of individuals dictating their own standards just because they choose to pull some well connected strings and throw down a little cash to their attorneys.    This is where everyone in Jacksonville has a dog in this fight.  If WLA and their ilk get their way what stops this same tactic from being employed elsewhere in the city? 

It truly is an embarrassment to think that a City Councilmen would allow himself to be led around by the nose by these people, but it sure seems as if Jim Love has signed up to be their lap dog, if he called a meeting but allows Alicia Grant to dictate the guest list.

Their underhanded politics, lies, and misrepresentations are what have caused this issue to become so contentious for people inside and outside the neighborhood.  It's what has caused people throughout the city to take notice to come to the support of Mellow Mushroom.   I think once it's all said and done there are a few merchants and residents who will end up with egg on their faces and urine on their orange trees....

You are correct about the attitude and much of the unneeded confrontation and dialog.  This situation has become a picture in time that clearly shows attitudes and behaviors that hold the entire community of Jacksonville hostage and why we are viewed (and often view ourselves) so poorly.  Not having it. 



Diane

[Spence]

Sadly Mr.Spinks has passed on, and now the event has been changing for years.

Who here would be vehemently opposed to a long looping hayride parade style, incorporating  floats through Fairfax Herschel Park, the Ortega Marinas, FYC, TCC, then along the right lane noth bound US17 Roosevelt to a left on Edgewood into MurrayHill, to Downtown through Post Street and Riverside to Springfield by Forsyth, Pearl, Boulevard thence east to Main on 8th, south to Bay, and further south over the blue Alsop bridge into the Square in SanMarco, returning by way of the Acosta back to Stockton, College, King and back into the Shoppes?
Maybe something to consider for next year??
As of now I could donate the use of almost a dozen tractors.
Flatbeds and floats are artist creations.
I am no artist.
I count beans.

We could make it all themed like lifeboats.
make your own titanic jokes about RAP.

[thelakelander]

Does anyone have an update?

[Cheshire Cat]

Ennis,

My inbox has been buzzing with messages from people on both sides of this issue.  None of what I have found out so far changes what I have stated in previous posts.  As far as the meeting goes, I want to talk to Jim Love himself about it.  Honestly, I am not interested in the content of the discussion during that meeting as much as I am interested in the open and fair treatment of all the members of our community. I have been told by several who have contacted me who are connected to the WLA that they did not cause the situation with the food truck and MM during Christmas in Avondale but at the same time there is on record the statements of Ms. Grant about MM with the gossipy tone of "the merchant's told them" sort of thing.  All of this commentary meant to excite passion on one side of the issue.  At this point it does not matter so much who did the deed as does the outcome of that confrontation which has only made this public discussion more pointed.

I have also been told that Ms. Grant is a "nice lady" and perhaps she is, but even nice folks can create unneeded problems.  I have verified that Ms. Grant was indeed the party telling people to leave the meeting and she was out of line in doing so.  The councilman is the person responsible for calling the meeting and chairing it.  Not Ms. Grant.  I would like to hear from Mr. Love himself what the criterion for attendance was.  It is currently my understanding that this was a "mediation" meeting between the principals of MM and parties who had filed appeals of some type.  I would guess the intent was to try and resolve some of the conflicts in a gracious and fair manner.  I do not know yet however if that was the case, but do know that all sides issues will be weighed at some point as appeals must be processed.  While WLA has organized they are still just a citizen group with no greater voice in this than the next property or business owner.  I can tell you I am sure hearing a lot of bellyaching and upset.  The last thing to hit print was a piece in the local "Resident Community News" which pretty much rehashes what has been said already with the exception that the article they have in print discusses the actions and conversation of a Mr. Donahoo as strongly objecting to the project and then references the WLA website and RAP website for further information, which in my view is quite one sided.  What I do know is that the process continues, this deal is moving forward and it is in the planning department.   As I stated in one private correspondence yesterday that was citing parking and the serving of alcohol as a the problem.   The problem with using that argument is that the parking situation is not new and is old news.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  Secondly was commentary about drunks and car accidents which speaks to a much broader issue that goes beyond this situation and is really a city, state and nationwide problem. While some in the community may have been confronted with these issues, there is no valid way to prove that car accidents or drunks are the result of any particular restaurant or business.  People can drink at home or at parties and be foolish enough to get behind the wheel.  Saying one business will make that matter worse is speculation at best.   It is unfair in my view to place that problem or fear on the shoulders of a person who has yet to start up a business.  The other reality is that the Mexican restaurant in the town that was there for some time also had a bar and is now closed, so the MM project in reality would only bring back the level of alcohol availability to what it was for the past several years.  The other point brought to my attention by opponents of the MM was that alcohol service Mr. Valentino wants is a variance request and does not have to be granted.  The problem is this.  That variance has already been granted to other business in the shops and the president has already been set.  There is no valid way for the city to refuse Valentino's  request without some sort of prejudice being sighted and an ensuing legal battle which I have to say would likely be decided in MM's favor. 

As you stated earlier Ennis, this is a good old fashioned battle of wills and it has gone too far in my opinion and considering the correspondence I have received in the last two days, many residents are tired of the whole situation.  What this will come down to will be a decision about granting the variance.  Whether or not some like it, the reality is that Mr. Valentino is well within his rights as a property owner and denying his request cannot be viewed as anything other than prejudicial.   I must tell you that so far I can find no indication that any underhanded dealing is going on here but rather the age old nonsense of one group wishing that their will trumps another. 

[strider]

Cheshire Cat:
What this will come down to will be a decision about granting the variance.  Whether or not some like it, the reality is that Mr. Valentino is well within his rights as a property owner and denying his request cannot be viewed as anything other than prejudicial.

It is my understanding that the variance in question has already been granted. Nothing for the city to do here but confirm what has already been granted.  Or the city could bow to whatever "power people" are behind WLA and find in favor of the appeal and retract the approval of the variance.

As someone who has had this same kind of attack against them (though different circumstances, the real and unsaid reasons are the same), MM needs to stay it's course, stay with the facts and what is right and in the end, even some of their strongest opponents will become their best customers.

[sheclown]

The voice given to historic districts should be limited to protection of existing historic stock. 

Jacksonville should not be in the business of being an HOA for every enclave of disgruntled neighbors .  And frankly, the rest of the city should rise up and demand that they not have to foot the bill for this parade of idiocy.

[Kaiser Soze]

The voice given to historic districts should be limited to protection of existing historic stock. 

Jacksonville should not be in the business of being an HOA for every enclave of disgruntled neighbors .  And frankly, the rest of the city should rise up and demand that they not have to foot the bill for this parade of idiocy.

Here here

[KEGreene1]

One of the questions I wanted to ask was: Why does 5 points (3hr.) and San Marco (2hr.) limit their parking?  Does this this help with employee parking?  Does homes on the adjacent blocks have 3-4 cars, with some parked in the street, account for part of the issues on the streets?  Would a stricter parking policy alleviate many of the current issues, even before MM opens their doors?  Where is the parking study that Mr. Love said he was going to initiate?

My issues are: 1) I'm not too keen on people telling someone how they should run their business, while at the same time allowing the business around them to be run in a manner that is a competitive advantage.  2) The lies and self righteous behavior by those who believe the consumers don't have a dog in this fight.  I would like you to ask the owners of all the Shoppes if they could survive with only the homeowners in the adjacent blocks.

[zedsdead]

The voice given to historic districts should be limited to protection of existing historic stock. 

Jacksonville should not be in the business of being an HOA for every enclave of disgruntled neighbors .  And frankly, the rest of the city should rise up and demand that they not have to foot the bill for this parade of idiocy.

I could not agree more. The fact that RAP is repeatedly involved in forcing the destruction of existing buildings to make way for parking lots blows my mind. What's up with that? It is not an HOA, it is a PRESERVATION society.

Or am I confused about that?

[Josh]

The voice given to historic districts should be limited to protection of existing historic stock. 

Jacksonville should not be in the business of being an HOA for every enclave of disgruntled neighbors .  And frankly, the rest of the city should rise up and demand that they not have to foot the bill for this parade of idiocy.

I could not agree more. The fact that RAP is repeatedly involved in forcing the destruction of existing buildings to make way for parking lots blows my mind. What's up with that? It is not an HOA, it is a PRESERVATION society.

Or am I confused about that?

As someone pointed out in one of the other related threads; while RAP was busy fighting against MM the and Kickbacks expansion, an old home in Riverside was demolished so that a $60k home built in 2001 could have a double lot.

[Intuition Ale Works]

What house?

[Josh]

Orleans Ct and Remington. If you use the satellite overlay in Google Maps you can still see the old blue house that was on Orleans, but if you zoom in to streetview there's just a wood fence extending the backyard of the house on the corner where it once was.

I don't know any of the details that took place, but the blue house didn't look like it was in that bad of shape the last time I saw it (which must have been shortly before it was demolished judging from the April 2011 timestamp on the streetview photos). I guess preservation truly is in the eye of the beholder.

[MEGATRON]

Orleans Ct and Remington. If you use the satellite overlay in Google Maps you can still see the old blue house that was on Orleans, but if you zoom in to streetview there's just a wood fence extending the backyard of the house on the corner where it once was.

I don't know any of the details that took place, but the blue house didn't look like it was in that bad of shape the last time I saw it (which must have been shortly before it was demolished judging from the April 2011 timestamp on the streetview photos). I guess preservation truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Was it a contributing structure under the regs?

[cline]

^I believe so.  It was built in 1922 when I looked it up a while back.

[fsquid]

that house just really needed a basketball court for the kids.