EXTRA, EXTRA, SPAR makes the new Special list - are you on it too?

[sheclown]

Strider, have you actually looked at the financials involved with this project? Do you have any idea how much these people are making off this deal? Have you considered that there is a lot of backscratching going on here? Do you really think these people are trying for rehabilitating people or are they just trying to take advantage of free government money. Springfielders love veterans and homeless people but we deserve to be informed prior to a project like this, and the project should't be a taxpayer scam!

I can't speak for Strider (but I will anyways )

Absolutely...taxpayers have a moral obligation to look into the financials of people who are spending their money.  Anything less is ripe for abuse. 

Know the battle you are fighting.

If it is misuse of government funds... fight that battle.

[strider]

Strider, have you actually looked at the financials involved with this project? Do you have any idea how much these people are making off this deal? Have you considered that there is a lot of backscratching going on here? Do you really think these people are trying for rehabilitating people or are they just trying to take advantage of free government money. Springfielders love veterans and homeless people but we deserve to be informed prior to a project like this, and the project should't be a taxpayer scam!

I have only seen the parts that have been quoted.  To be honest, as a contractor, some of the rehab cost may be OK - higher than one would like, but not too extreme. (some of the quotes from subs lately have been lots higher than when things were hopping). I also know that it is standard practice for a non-profit getting a grant like this to take 16% as developer fees. For instance, do the math on ONH on 8th st.  Did you cry foul on that one? 

I had reservations at first over how this is being done.  I still do, but I also have read about the program type and Ability Housing, talked to an actual neighbor of another project, talked to interested parties in Springfield and came away with the idea that this is no worse than what is there now. All the arguments about fair housing or what is going to happen to the current residents are just talk.  It must be handled properly regardless of who buys the building.  That is the same as calling foul because it is a "special use".  It is not.  Even reserving the apartments for veterans, the handicapped or previously homeless simply falls into the Reasonable Accommodations category and does not change the legality of the use.

The way this is coming across is that Springfielder's do not love anyone else but themselves. That is what upsets me the most.  Springfield is a great place and has lots of potential if the current leadership would just stop shooting themselves in the foot.

This is not a tax payer scam.  It is taxpayer money being used in a way that is becoming standard practice.  At this point, the best thing is to insure they will be good neighbors. Yes, continue to follow the money.  But realize that it may require asking for changes to be made in how those funds are distributed and how much public input should be required rather than stopping this project in anyway.  You are asking for more accountability when the trend today seems to be quite the opposite.  Meaning that this is long and hard fight.

I do not mean to sound like I am taking Ability Housing's side in this. I'm not really.  I just know it can't be stopped this way, perhaps no way.  I think the wrong tack was taken on this and Springfield is now way off course. The race is most likely lost.  There was a way to benefit from this regardless of whether it is here or not and I think that opportunity is long gone. Springfield loses again. All because some prefer the stomping of feet rather than facts and what is often the hard truth.

[JaxUnicorn]

Is this seriously the list in question?

It is the list which was provided after inquires were made.

The list provided in this thread was compiled this week.  Although it may turn out to be the properties referenced during the Ability Housing community meeting last week, to my knowledge the list of "40-50 special use properties in Springfield" has not been shared yet.  I asked the President of SPAR for the list; he told me he didn't have it.  (Emphasis below is mine.)

On Apr 11, 2014 9:15 AM, "Bill Hoff" wrote:

Hi Kim,

I think Jack Meeks contacted a city department to obtain a rough list. I don't have one. As you can see in the email below, we'll need volunteers to accumulate a thorough list of social service housing, map them out, etc, so we actually will have a detailed list for future use. Hopefully we'll have more info on that soon.

I emailed Mr. Meeks and asked him to please provide the list of properties he was referring to during the Community Meeting. Since SPAR doesn't have a list, no one will know for sure which properties Mr. Meeks was talking about until we get the list from him.  Hopefully he can help to clear things up.

[JaxUnicorn]

Also important to share is that the posted list is not one that strider nor sheclown put together, but one that was compiled by another neighbor after people began to ask for the list of "special use" properties in Springfield.  In the interest of privacy, I have removed the actual email addresses from the below email.  I do appreciate Max for taking the time to conduct the query to obtain the information.  Although I think the list Max created may contain the same properties that are on the list Mr. Meeks has, we won't know for sure until he shares his list. 

From: Max
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Subject: "Special Use" exemptions
To: Gloria, Kim, Amanda, Max

Good afternoon all:

Attached is the spreadsheet I created in an attempt to gain some quantitative perspective on the zoning issues we are facing. I used four of the 75 exemption codes that best matched the types of "special uses" similar to the AH proposal.

The first page is the Springfield list which was extrapolated from the remaining pages.

There were a total of 699. Since Springfield is conveniently one mile square, I divided the 699 by the 850 square miles that makes up Jacksonville for a result of .82 per square mile. There are 45 properties on the Springfield list, so 50 times the county average. As a comparison, there are six properties in Riverside and three in San Marco.

You can debate the particular uses or specific properties, but the simple fact is this illustrates the same conclusions others have come to that resulted in the zoning overlay--the overabundance of these type facilities in Springfield results in a negative impact on the community both demographically and socially.

I wish we could help everyone, just as I would like to help every feral cat, but there is a limit as to what we can adequately sustain.

[sheclown]

There are 10 special uses grandfathered into the overlay.

Not 40, not 50 or more.

[Bill Hoff]

I think some people have been using the general spirit of "special use" and not the technical term.

So, for example, there's a property that is used as a homeless program right now on Boulevard. It's not technically considered a special use, but it is a dedicated homeless program. Etc.

If considering just the technical definition of special use, 10 is still an unusually high number for any 1 sq mile in Jax.

Factoring in the other types of social service housing in & adjacent to the neighborhood, you get a significantly higher number. And I think that's the number, whatever it may be, to look at.

Also a correction, a private citizen produced the list of properties referenced in the title of this thread, not an organization.

[sheclown]

Bill the "SPAR makes the special list" in that it is ON the special list, not that it composed it.

What homeless program on Boulevard?

[strider]

I think some people have been using the general spirit of "special use" and not the technical term.

So, for example, there's a property that is used as a homeless program right now on Boulevard. It's not technically considered a special use, but it is a dedicated homeless program. Etc.

If considering just the technical definition of special use, 10 is still an unusually high number for any 1 sq mile in Jax.

Factoring in the other types of social service housing in & adjacent to the neighborhood, you get a significantly higher number. And I think that's the number, whatever it may be, to look at.

Also a correction, a private citizen produced the list of properties referenced in the title of this thread, not an organization.

Isn't it interesting that lots of people keep defending SPAR when I have not credited SPAR with anything to do with this list?  Other than being one of the "terrible" non-profits ON the list.

Here the problem with just up and redefining the definition of "SPECIAL USES" at will.  The writers of both the RUDAC study and the Overlay recognized certain uses in too large a number could be detrimental to the health of the community. Both the study and the Overlay defined those specific "Special Uses".  Both also did not specify a number that would be OK, IE: Neither stated that there had to be only 10 or 5 or 20 for things to be OK.  Then, they looked at other uses, uses that are legal by right, not only under the overlay, but all over Jacksonville and said, hey, those in the numbers naturally limited by zoning are OK, they do not contribute to the decline of the community.  Things like low density group care homes, for instance, are by right with just normal restrictions. That are the same for others areas of Jacksonville. Then some uses, like automotive uses, are considered intensive and the writers felt that they needed to be looked at on a case by case basis and so are legal by exception rather than by right.  Now, all of that sounds pretty good to me.  And many here seem to agree that they like the Overlay. Except that some want to use the Overlay to make THEIR version or definition of "Special Uses", whatever they may decide that definition may be this week,  be the uses that are detrimental to the community and illegal to boot.  That is NOT what the Overlay says nor intends.  Nor was it the intent of the overlay to make any other type of non-profit or for profit business a Special Use except as already strictly and legally defined.

And the "Technical definition"?  Try that it is the LEGAL, I repeat, LEGAL, definition.  No amount of wishing on your part will change that. Now, you can go to City Council and try to change that definition to be what you want.  But then all those uses you do not like would have to be grandfathered in and if you hurt mine, for instance, we would simply head to Federal Court.  And win.  Ask the OGC.

Laws are written, discussed and voted on so that they are not just made up or changed in an arbitrary fashion on someone's whim.  Not even the president of SPAR's whim.

[Debbie Thompson]

Rarified air.  Too funny. I grew up in the suburbs of Miami and Jacksonville, where one could pretty much be sure your neighbor made about the same as you, because all the houses were the same, built about the same time, and cost the same. We all drove three year old Fords or Chevy's, and thought Karen's dad was exotic because he had a Karman Ghia.

The diversity in Springfield is one of the things I love about it. Rarified air. LOL. Good one, Stephen.

[strider]

Well Bill Huff has said that SPAR is doing a position paper on this so all will be well soon I suppose.

[IrvAdams]

SPAR,
THe Women's Club
Sustainable Springfield.
The Karpeles Museum
The Bridge
Project New Hope (one of the largest renovators in the area)
And the Boys Club?

Most people consider these things amenities.  Not something to be protected from.

The Karpeles Museum? Don't understand that one, compared to the others. I must've missed something.