Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[Adam White]

This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell. Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.

Isn't that right ? ? ?

To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.

I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.

I don't follow. By your argument, are you basically saying that any homeowner should be allowed to annex public property that abuts his property for no charge? This particular parcel has been public since 1914 (if I am correct). There is no way the current owners have owned this property at any time - so gifting them the property certainly is not a case of returning something to them that they previously owned.

[MEGATRON]

Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.

Just speculation.

I think you are spot on.  The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time.  By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan.  Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public.  And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect.  Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property.

stop making stuff up. The plans for the house do not encroach on the area in question. As for people saying that they use the area, outside of one of those speakers, well, I don't want to call them liars but ...

Kay, how about RAP take charge of keeping these areas.  Rather than merely complaining being a pary of the solution.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It needs to be a waterfront Public access street end with active recreational opportunities made available for everyone. Pocket Parks, Pocket Piers. Why not? Did a site inspection the other day and the area is cleared out. 3 people were fishing. The surveyor guys were putting out the surveying stakes. And some people were up talking near the street next to the parking area. Jump in to a community organized opportunity. Public, Private, Partnership?

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

[Steve]

Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.

Just speculation.

I think you are spot on.  The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time.  By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan.  Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public.  And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect.  Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property.

stop making stuff up. The plans for the house do not encroach on the area in question. As for people saying that they use the area, outside of one of those speakers, well, I don't want to call them liars but ...

Kay, how about RAP take charge of keeping these areas.  Rather than merely complaining being a pary of the solution.

If you have the plans for the house, feel free to share. I was going to public records request them myself but if you have them it would save me a step. Also, not sure either Kay or myself were making stuff up. I stated that my feeling was speculation, based on looking at google maps-not exactly a secret source, and if Kay said that the COA and the ROW closure happened at the same time, then knowing Kay for as long as I have, I would tend to believe her. While Kay certainly has no problem sharing her opinion, I've yet to find an instance where she completely fabricated something that is a black and white fact.

BTW in regard to RAP, your statement about RAP being part of the solution seems like an echo from what RAP email blasted out last Thursday. Great minds think alike I guess.

[jaxjags]

The only way to know the situation for sure is to read the deeds for the properties and the legislation. The land in question may be part of the deeds with a reserved right of way. If that is the case then the owners are already deeded the property and just need to remove the ROW. This costs about $1800 and the legislation then becomes part of the deed. I had a similar situation when building my house on a lot with a ROW reserved for a yet to be built road. The city was willing to remove the right of way. As that land was already in the deed, no change to deed was required. The land reverted back to my use except for a JEA easement for drainage maintenance. It did need all city department review and could have been opposed, as the Parks Dept. is doing in this case. If this is the case I have no issue with the situation.

If this is actually "city owned" land being deeded to the adjacent owners, that is different. They should pay fair market value for the land.

[Adam White]

The only way to know the situation for sure is to read the deeds for the properties and the legislation. The land in question may be part of the deeds with a reserved right of way. If that is the case then the owners are already deeded the property and just need to remove the ROW. This costs about $1800 and the legislation then becomes part of the deed. I had a similar situation when building my house on a lot with a ROW reserved for a yet to be built road. The city was willing to remove the right of way. As that land was already in the deed, no change to deed was required. The land reverted back to my use except for a JEA easement for drainage maintenance. It did need all city department review and could have been opposed, as the Parks Dept. is doing in this case. If this is the case I have no issue with the situation.

If this is actually "city owned" land being deeded to the adjacent owners, that is different. They should pay fair market value for the land.

If you read the ordinance, it states that the land is owned by COJ and that the City would have a utilities easement once the land is given to the adjacent property owners. Not sure if that's what you mean - but the ordinance seems to make it pretty clear that this is public land as opposed to an easement on land which is deeded to the adjacent property owners. Also, there was  link posted earlier which showed that this land was not part of either plat.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riversideavondale.org%2Findex.php%3Fs%3Dfile_download%26id%3D184&ei=WPtpVbm7PMXYywPco4HACg&usg=AFQjCNGt9C2zNWdEgk-G4_E19cb5Z2tNJw&bvm=bv.94455598,d.bGQ

[MEGATRON]

Why does it matter that the ROW vacation and building plans were submitted at the same time? 

I did not receive the RAP email. Please share.

[MEGATRON]

And what do you think the fair market value is far a small strip of land that cannot be built on?

[MEGATRON]

I'm not sure they want the land as much as they want to be able to keep bad elements away from it.

[Steve]

According to Councilman Crescembeni in an email to me about it, over $600k.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

According to Councilman Crescembeni in an email to me about it, over $600k.

Seems a bit high based on the assessed value of the comparable properties around to it, but even at half of that, it's quite a damn bit more than their current 'offer'.

[Jax native]

If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not.  It is an abandoned sewage ROW.  So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.

This strikes me as the rather conveniently overlooked essential point. But I would say the question isn't that which is posed by SunKing. The question, to me, is this: Even if the City has the legal authority to maintain control of this space . . . should it? And my answer is no, it most definitely should not.

Most of the folks who frequent this board are all into city planning, etc. Can't we at least be honest and admit this space was NEVER contemplated as a city park? And, it was never contemplated as a river-access space, was it? When the need for the sewage right of way vanished, the use of the property SHOULD have gone back to the adjacent property owners . . . shouldn't it ? ? ?

Most of y'all are getting to a question that should never be reached, or, at least, is a question that is secondary in nature.

We're talking about the power of government to command use of space for a need, and then that need subsequently going away. But the vibe on this board seems to be all for government conveniently commanding some other utility for this space, a utility that wasn't originally contemplated when the right of way was asserted -- which is all well and good, I suppose -- presuming that the CURRENT adjacent property owners are cool with that utility and sign off on it.

It doesn't sound as though they are cool with, and it doesn't matter to me that one of those property owners wants to build on the adjacent land -- so what? Right is right. The City's need for the sewage right of way is completely gone. Back away, City of Jacksonville, and leave these people be.

This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell. Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.

Isn't that right ? ? ?

To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.

I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.

You would perform pretty shitty to a group of Native Americans about ownership of property. 

[thelakelander]

um  no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others.  George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.

Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.

The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.

I think some of this story line is inaccurate. Parts of Riverside were platted as far back as the 1860s and Avondale was developed around 1920. Riverside/Avondale would have already been largely developed by the 1929 plan. Also, Brooklyn and Riverside were carved out from the Dell's Bluff Plantation. Avondale sits on the former Magnolia Plantation. The Honeymoon Plantation was slightly north of both.

In any event, it is correct that the developers for both Riverside and Avondale included publicly owned riverfront access in the form the street ROW. So Rattler is incorrect with the abandoned sewage access concept and the idea that property should go back to the adjacent land owners. The property was never their's or even their predecessors.

[thelakelander]

^Brooklyn and Riverside (and Silvertown) predate the name change to Riverside Ave by almost 30 years. That area was once the Dell's Bluff Plantation.  I'd have to go back and find the map but I believe the 1880s plat of Edgewood (portions later replatted as Murray Hill and Avondale) also had street ROW running into the river.....like the original plat of the city....well before Simons time or influence.

[MEGATRON]

So, what has RAP proposed?