Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

[Charles Hunter]

If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.

Don't think so.  Most city streets do not use all of the city's right-of-way, there is usually a strip of space the city owns outside the curbline.  Look for the telephone poles, they are often (but not always) on the right-of-way line.  A 15' widening should not be a right-of-way problem for the City.  Just the cost (both $$ and in angry citizens) of actually doing the work.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the City of New London case applies here (if the City did need more right-of-way for River Oaks).  The justification would be for traffic safety.  New London was about the city condemning property from several private owners to sell to one private owner.  If the City were to condemn some property near the old car dealership to make the Jackson Square parcel bigger - that would run afoul of New London.

[Joe]

Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?

When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.

You want your kids running out to play in that?

Based on previous neighborhood complaints - about how River Oaks was too narrow to handle the traffic capacity - I would have assumed that widening the road and adding a median would be a good-faith attempt at addressing the neighborhood's problem. Wasn't the problem supposedly that the road was too narrow?

If the neighborhood doesn't want the road expanded ... it's probably a really bad tactic to complain that the street is too narrow.

(Also, Charles' comments are basically correct. The city probably owns large easments along River Oaks, as they would in almost any front yard in the city. Consequently, several feet of "their" front yards are already "owned" by the city, in a manner of speaking. No eminent domain is required. Even if eminent domain were needed, it would almost certainly be legal, as road widening has a clear public purpose element. Road widening is one of the most basic public domain functions, and it isn't seriously impacted by new state laws.)

[tufsu1]

If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.

Don't think so.  Most city streets do not use all of the city's right-of-way, there is usually a strip of space the city owns outside the curbline.  Look for the telephone poles, they are often (but not always) on the right-of-way line.  A 15' widening should not be a right-of-way problem for the City.  Just the cost (both $$ and in angry citizens) of actually doing the work.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the City of New London case applies here (if the City did need more right-of-way for River Oaks).  The justification would be for traffic safety.  New London was about the city condemning property from several private owners to sell to one private owner.  If the City were to condemn some property near the old car dealership to make the Jackson Square parcel bigger - that would run afoul of New London.

The reason for mentioning New London is that, according to the neighbors, the only reason for widening their street would be for this development...as such, it directly relates to economic development...you are correct that it is not quite the same, but there are pieces that would relate.

As for the extra ROW that is already there....if they widened the street for even a 8-10' median, they would still need to keep the power poles and other utilities....so they would still have to find land outside the current ROW.

The exception would be if the City already had an easement on the properties there that could be used.

[thelakelander]

At this point, I believe people are jumping to conclusions on the need to widen River Oaks Road between the RR crossing and San Jose/Hendricks.  A multiple block median seems excessive, especially when it does not appear a traffic study has even been completed. 

Anyway, here's an image of River Oaks Road.  Widening the road would change the character of the community.

[Joe]

^ And don't forget that neither the developer nor the city want to spend money that they don't have to. Widening would be very expensive. They'll only widen a road if people pressure them to do it (i.e. if they are constantly hearing complaints about the a road's lack of capacity).

[cottonwood]

Turning  a residential street into a main traffic corridor and adding 1000+ potential new residents to the area sounds like a really bad deal for the neighborhood.  Atlantic and St Augustine and Emerson are already wide for multiple lanes and really not that far out of the way to use as connectors.  From the corner of River Oaks and Hendricks it is slightly under 1/2 a mile, and less than a minute's drive to go to Atlantic Blvd.  Turning a nice residential street into a busy traffic corridor can be avoided if River Oaks is dead-ended, and then most opposition to this project will be dealt with; the inconvenience of an extra half mile drive doesn't seem that big of a deal.   How hard will it be to fit an extra one or two minutes into your commute to let the neighborhood have it's street?  the railroad wants to close it for safety reasons, and they've offered to foot the bill- why not?

[thelakelander]

Turning  a residential street into a main traffic corridor and adding 1000+ potential new residents to the area sounds like a really bad deal for the neighborhood.

It does.  However, it seems like everyone is going off assumptions based off a lack of information passing between both groups (the residents & developers).  For example, it appears that a traffic study has not even been conducted.  Until one is done, no one knows what the impact to River Oaks Road will be.  It seems like this should be one of the first things generated before both sides start taking about traffic calming measures, road widenings or closing crossings.

Atlantic and St Augustine and Emerson are already wide for multiple lanes and really not that far out of the way to use as connectors.  From the corner of River Oaks and Hendricks it is slightly under 1/2 a mile, and less than a minute's drive to go to Atlantic Blvd.  Turning a nice residential street into a busy traffic corridor can be avoided if River Oaks is dead-ended, and then most opposition to this project will be dealt with; the inconvenience of an extra half mile drive doesn't seem that big of a deal.   How hard will it be to fit an extra one or two minutes into your commute to let the neighborhood have it's street?  the railroad wants to close it for safety reasons, and they've offered to foot the bill- why not?

Both sides are also overlooking the impact of attempting to get commuter rail down FEC's corridor.  FEC is not going to allow the liability of having passenger trains run down their busy line without some concessions that improve their ability to haul freight.  Closing the crossing (and many others) may be required to get commuter rail.  If this is the case, perhaps there should be no debate on this issue.

[JeffreyS]

If this crossing were closed would that bar pedestrian traffic as well?  This site has regularly advocated for slowing traffic in neighborhoods and I believe will stand with the residents to control traffic problems.

[thelakelander]

Yes.  Pedestrians crossing railroad tracks are a liability just like vehicular crossings.  However, Jackson Square plans show a pedestrian overpass between FEC park and Jackson Square.  This could be used by River Oaks residents to gain access to Jackson Square's retail and dining destinations.

[thelakelander]

This site has regularly advocated for slowing traffic in neighborhoods and I believe will stand with the residents to control traffic problems.

The problem here is that residents on these streets will then add to the crossover problems on nearby residential streets, running into Atlantic Blvd or St. Augustine Road.  So you don't solve a percieved problem, you just shift it to the neighbor next door.  This is why a traditional grid is typically the best format in moving traffic.  All roads combine to diffuse all types of traffic.  The cul-de-sac/gated community style of planning creates congestion on major arterial streets.  Nevertheless, if the goal is to get commuter rail, closing River Oaks is the lesser of two evils and the debate is moot anyway.

[southerngirl]

But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.

In theory, your grid idea is fine. But in reality -- the destination will be at the end of River Oaks, and the workaround to get there from the other grid streets isn't as direct.

Everyone will, as they do today, USE River Oaks. Just listen to the comments of some of the cut-throughers who are complaining about the idea of closing the crossing...it's convenient. And will be even MORE convenient to apartments, retail and commercial patrons of Jackson Square.

By the way -- by advocating for the closure of the crossing, we are giving up the convenience of that crossing to Philips/95, ourselves. That's a sacrifice we're willing to make to keep our small streets safe and to keep the city from coming in and taking our yards to widen the road to provide access to a developer.

Those of us who want it closed completely understand that there will be runoff traffic onto our neighboring streets, and we certainly advocate for calming measures (speed bumps) to keep the impact as low as possible.

[thelakelander]

But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.

To be honest, I don't know.  That's why I would be interested in seeing the results from a traffic study.  A traffic study would help determine where most of the trips to and from this development will generate from.  Knowing that, we could then identify the streets receiving the most traffic.  Once that's known, the PUD application/site plan should be modified, as needed.

In theory, your grid idea is fine. But in reality -- the destination will be at the end of River Oaks, and the workaround to get there from the other grid streets isn't as direct.

Everyone will, as they do today, USE River Oaks. Just listen to the comments of some of the cut-throughers who are complaining about the idea of closing the crossing...it's convenient. And will be even MORE convenient to apartments, retail and commercial patrons of Jackson Square.

Without a traffic study in hand, this account would make the assumption that most vehicular trips to Jackson Square would be made from Hendricks.  No one knows if that's true at this point, which makes comments like the city taking resident's yards to widen the entire length of River Oaks speculation.  I don't know if tying in the PUD rezoning with the crossing issue is the best way to get it closed.   The developer could break ground on a shopping center tomorrow, under the existing zoning, bringing more traffic into the area and residents would have no power to hold him to closing the crossing.  Unless a traffic study suggest a surge in traffic along River Oaks Road, they really do seem like separate issues.  It seems like the FEC liability/commuter rail/crossing safety issue may be the stronger argument for closing the crossing.

By the way -- by advocating for the closure of the crossing, we are giving up the convenience of that crossing to Philips/95, ourselves. That's a sacrifice we're willing to make to keep our small streets safe and to keep the city from coming in and taking our yards to widen the road to provide access to a developer.

Those of us who want it closed completely understand that there will be runoff traffic onto our neighboring streets, and we certainly advocate for calming measures (speed bumps) to keep the impact as low as possible.

How do residents on Lorimier and Dunsford feel about potentially closing the crossing?

[tufsu1]

But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.

honestly, you are wrong....clearly the majority of traffic to/from this development will be on Phillips Hwy.

[southerngirl]

I mean the neighborhood impact...sure Philips, WHICH IS A HIGHWAY, will take on many cars, but River Oaks, WHICH IS A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD, is currently the ONLY neighborhood street that is planned with a formal entry into the development. Apart from Philips, River Oaks stands to take the biggest hit.

[thelakelander]

Looking at aerials, my guess is its probably something like this:

1. Philips Highway
2. St. Augustine Road (more opportunities to cross over for northbound Hendricks/San Marco traffic)
3. Atlantic Blvd. (street provides easier/quicker to access from the north)
4. River Oaks Road (most likely will be dominated by River Oaks and San Marco residents, west of Hendricks)

So if we strip away all the more efficient access points surrounding the site, River Oaks would be the first secondary/residential street to see an impact.  The largest question would be determining what type of impact that might be.  Nevertheless, a result that calls for widening the street is highly unlikely.