Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[bencrix]

[Not sure if this is already a topic somewhere on the site. If so apologies]

Councilman Clark (District 3) has sponsored legislation (215-360) that would close public river access at Richmond St. & Little Van Wert in Avondale (District 14) at the request of the two adjacent property owners. The property would revert to the property owners (reserving a JEA right-of-way).

Section 3 of the proposed legislation waives Ordinance Section 744.104, which requires that the applicant seeking closure of public access convey comparable property providing comparable access as a condition of closure in addition to administrative review by COJ Public Works.

It appears (according to the legislation) that both the COJ Parks and Planning departments have objected to the street closure.

http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2015-0360/Original%20Text/2015-360.doc

[jaxlore]

So are they getting free land out of this?

[mbwright]

basically they paid a fee, and are requesting the easement go back to them, so their can't be any pedestrian access.

[acme54321]

So are they getting free land out of this?

No, looks like it is their land with an easement over it.

[jaxlore]

Ahhh.

Wow so parks and planning are against this and all it takes a fee and a smile and you can get them to waive the existing laws, nice.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,90y,127.37h,76.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!6m1!1e1

[urbanlibertarian]

It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So are they getting free land out of this?

No, looks like it is their land with an easement over it.

I'm not so sure about that.  According the this, they're just trying to nab a small plot of land that runs between their properties.

http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMapsSQL/viewer.htm?Layers=01101100001100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000110&Tools=Yes&ActiveLayer=2&Query=RE%20%3D%20%27092413%200000%27&Queryzoom=Yes

Edit:  Sorry, but you'll have to pan down a bit to see the properties in question.

Google Earth:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Van+Wert+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32205/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,75y,127.73h,81.95t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e5b83962767f87:0x3851cf2edc46ba06!6m1!1e1

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.

Or even why he's the one sponsoring legislation outside of his district?  Wouldn't/Shouldn't this be a Jim Love issue?

[Dog Walker]

The property owners don't like it that people from outside of the neighborhood come down to the river to fish.  They hired Paul Harden who wrote the legislation for Clark and is lobbying the other council members.

[simms3]

We used to drink here a lot.  Knew both neighbors, still do.  I'm sure they're tired of neighborhood kids doing illegal things next to their house.

However, my God, where are the Avondale kids and Ortega kids going to wrabble rouse once all these easements are taken back by millionaire riverfront property owners?  An already lily white crime free neighborhood will become even whiter and safer.

These are the things you get concerned about when there's nothing else to concern you.  "Oh my God, I caught [made up Anglo names] Jack Dempsey's and Barbara Walter's kids out there with a 30 rack and a marijuana cigarette!  Ugh, oh my God what is the world coming to?"

[SunKing]

I also live in the area.  Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained.  I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty.  There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc.  The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love. 

[MEGATRON]

It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.

I can explain for them since I live very close and walk by it twice a day.  It is not maintained at all.  The vegetation has not been kept up in my eight years of living in the neighborhood.  The easement is littered with an excessive volume of trash.  Despite being posted that it is only accessible during daylight hours, there is often a group hanging out there late after dark.

[bencrix]

I also walk by often. Yes it is not "maintained" and there is much "secondary succession" (http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/successn/second.htm) going on to the right and left of a narrow footpath that leads to a clearing at the river. (It has been much the same in the 30+ years I have observed it).

It is actually quite nice to have some "wild" in the neighborhood. A great place to walk the dogs. That said, I can understand why some (most?) would like to see it maintained as the other access points in the area are. Those are presumably maintained by adjacent homeowners...

If there is morally ambiguous activity going on there at night, it is not significantly more obtrusive to the neighborhood than that going on in private backyards.

I suppose the question is: are these two issues commensurate to the proposed remedy?

[urbanlibertarian]

It is probably not maintained because COJ has WAY more park land than we can afford to maintain properly.  Maybe we could sell some of it and use the proceeds to maintain areas like this. and parks that are in sad shape.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I thought I had typed this in yesterday, but obviously I only thought about typing it and my telekinesis keyboard must still be broken...

Looking at this thing from both sides, I can understand why the homeowners want to 'take over' the property.  After some thought, I'm not against it.  I went by there yesterday, and it really is just, well... nothing.  So on the one hand, my though is if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves. 

You know that strip of land between the water-meter and the curb of most everyone's front lawn?  Yeah, that's also PU easement that we maintain all the time with no worries, why should this strip be treated any differently?

On the other hand....

I am, however, completely against allowing them to file some paperwork and basically take the property via  what essentially becomes 'eminent domain'. If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.