Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[ChriswUfGator]

So, what has RAP proposed?

Waiting to see if anyone eats pizza on it to make their mind up.

[Noone]

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.

2015-360 will be in Rules in about 9 hours. Anyone going? So this is in District 14. Councilman Love is also the Chair of Waterways. Will this be sent or maybe it already has to the 6/10/15 Waterways meeting. Don Redman a member of Waterways made that request at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360.

Councilman Clark Dist.14 and Paul Hardin doesn't anyone else now appreciate Shipyards even more. This gives greater understanding to the Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel 26' Berkman Floating dock compromise (Shipyards III) misrepresented by OGC to Waterways and the Jacksonville city council during the 2013 FIND grant application process and then positively reinforced by then member of Waterways Dist.5 city councilwoman Lori Boyer and the OGC opinion on Catherine St.

I'm stoked with the new IG Thomas Cline who should restore the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.

Plan on doing a RICO loop.

I am Downtown and why you aren't.

Visit Jacksonville!

[Steve]

So, what has RAP proposed?

I wouldn't say that RAP has proposed anything (nor did I above). I just said that they want to be part of the solution. Here is the link on the website (this was what was sent out in an email box).

http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?id=272

[jaxjags]

I am not a RAP fan, but in this case I agree with their position, but for a different reason. This land is not without value and cannot be deeded or legislated to the owners for free. This lot may be unbuildable, but when combined with the adjoining property gives the owners: one of the bigger properties on the river for that area; a lot with more flexible building capability; no concern of intrusion by others on their property. $600,000 may be high, but this is not an inexpensive place to build and live.

[Noone]

In Rules right now. Councilman Love indicated that he wants to take 2015-360 up. Rules is being broadcast live right now. COJ.net go to city council.

[RattlerGator]

No one has taken up (I don't think) my assertion that this strip was never contemplated as a park and it wasn't contemplated as public access to the river. So . . . 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.

Fine, haggle over fair market value but that's the limited issue this question should center upon. That 600k figure is absurd, however.

[thelakelander]

I have no idea of how the monetary value for this strip of property was generated. Nevertheless, if the public street ROW was originally platted to the river, then that's public access. Whether we refer to that access as a park, street, grass or whatever, really doesn't matter. Ideally, the city should maintain everything it owns.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well, the entire issue has been put off until the end of July, so we can debate conjecture until then. 

Here are some interesting notes:

• This has been ongoing since 2012ish with no ground gained or given.
• After the legislation was filed, not only has there been more scrutiny on this 'park, but many of the other access points in the area as well.
• As it stands, there are plans for turning from ROW into an actual park.
• If the property reverts to the adjacent owners, they won't be allowed to build due to easements. (Until they file that legislature to remove the easement of course.  )
• RAP and JLove are against it, if for no other reason, they don't want this to set precedence for others' with $$$ and similar situations.

[Know Growth]

I'm confused- who in fact is my Council Person Representative? Jim Love or Kevin Kunzel?

 

[Know Growth]

So, what has RAP proposed?

Waiting to see if anyone eats pizza on it to make their mind up.

This will require Brick Health Salad and mounds of Bluefish oysters,followed by Biscottis Carrot Cake and a La Finde Du Monde,and finally,a Mojo Whiskey in aromatic producing glass....Uppermost Shelf.

[camarocane]

Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.

It was mentioned at the meeting, but as I mentioned in my post above, legislating out the easement could/would/might be the next step. 

Possession is 9/10....

I would love to believe that they're just being altruistic, you know, for the kids on their scooters, but my cynicism won't allow it.

[camarocane]

Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.

It was mentioned at the meeting, but as I mentioned in my post above, legislating out the easement could/would/might be the next step. 

Possession is 9/10....

I would love to believe that they're just being altruistic, you know, for the kids on their scooters, but my cynicism won't allow it.

It would have to be an eventual step, but I doubt it would happen. The JEA is very protective of its easements and unless those sewer lines were rerouted I personally don't see them giving it up.
If deeded over, did the council ask the owners what they would do differently from the COJ?
I just have a feeling that if the owners acquire this parcel, nothing else will be done. They'll just continue calling the cops as they are currently doing.... Status quo and all

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It would have to be an eventual step, but I doubt it would happen. The JEA is very protective of its easements and unless those sewer lines were rerouted I personally don't see them giving it up.

True.  But is there actually anything below?  I won't claim to know too much about it, but I doubt there's a sewer line running downhill to the river.  My guess would be that they (JEA) owns the easement in the case of  any future development due to the depth of the lots on either side. 

If deeded over, did the council ask the owners what they would do differently from the COJ?
I just have a feeling that if the owners acquire this parcel, nothing else will be done. They'll just continue calling the cops as they are currently doing.... Status quo and all

There really wasn't much discussion along these lines.  And I agree with you that they'll do much with the property considering they won't be allowed to build anything on it.  I would expect a fence and some "No Trespassing" signs to go up along the road.  How awesome is that going to look? 

I think the best case moving forward will be for the city and RAP to actively work to make it an actual park.  JLove said he has some money to put towards it, now they just need to get it done.  The hope is that they can have a plan in place by the time this is taken up again in council at the end of July.

[MEGATRON]

There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river.  You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead.  So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.