Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[MEGATRON]

Megatron.It must be like that little bit of right of way in front of your house, between the sidewalk and the street.

The city has right of way so screw it, right?

I imagine everyone in the city should follow the same advice?

Yeah, its exactly like that but it's sixty feet wide and probably a couple hundred feet deep.  The two situations are not remotely similar.

[MEGATRON]

hmm.  how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way?  Would it be like half that? A third?

You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street?  Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.

[The_Choose_1]

hmm.  how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way?  Would it be like half that? A third?

You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street?  Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.

These home owners https://goo.gl/maps/Qgmcm are so far back unless their homes have paper thin walls shouldn't hear any noise from the Public right away? Or maybe it's just the site of the cars that park on the little road going to the public right away that has some of the Avondale neighbors really upset. https://goo.gl/maps/ldgNk

[MEGATRON]

hmm.  how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way?  Would it be like half that? A third?

You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street?  Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.

These home owners https://goo.gl/maps/Qgmcm are so far back unless their homes have paper thin walls shouldn't hear any noise from the Public right away? Or maybe it's just the site of the cars that park on the little road going to the public right away that has some of the Avondale neighbors really upset. https://goo.gl/maps/ldgNk

Those homeowners have stayed out of this mess intentionally.

Not sure why I keep responding to you, but it really has nothign to do with noise.  Nor does it have anything to do with parking.

[The_Choose_1]

Case Closed we will have to wait and see who the COJ decides to screw next. The tax payers of Jacksonville, JEA or other Agencies or the Avondale residents that what the right of way sold and closed to the general public.   

[Know Growth]

....and another thang!......take down the dang sea wall. You go to the end of these spots,.....yippie!.....The River!!!,as you stand on the edge of a concrete wall. We need to modify these spots and build gentle incline ramps in place of the walls- perfect for hand launched kayak and paddle board.

[The_Choose_1]

....and another thang!......take down the dang sea wall. You go to the end of these spots,.....yippie!.....The River!!!,as you stand on the edge of a concrete wall. We need to modify these spots and build gentle incline ramps in place of the walls- perfect for hand launched kayak and paddle board.

If the city of Jacksonville isn't cleaning this area then why would they spend a dime on a ramp to make it easier for people with a kayak to get into the water?

[bencrix]

Latest news on this controversy:

The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.

A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU")  between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."

https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ

The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:

- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.

Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.

The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.

[JHAT76]

Latest news on this controversy:

The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.

A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU")  between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."

https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ

The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:

- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.

Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.

The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.
>

Got to love the Richmond folks wanting their own private rules.  Let the other plebes in Avondale have street parking and stripes.

[mbwright]

Maybe Paul won't get his way.  It seem like he gets whatever he wants.  Money talks.  If you were having a party, would you have to issue guest permits?

[The_Choose_1]

Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden seems to be a tool?

[The_Choose_1]

Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden seems to be a tool?

Or, you know, a very successful and smart attorney.  Jesus the these-people-are-rich-and-must-be-assholes hate is ridiculous here.  I'd love to be able to see everyone's opinions if they owned these properties.

I live on the Ortega river and my neighbors are not Assholes. Google Paul Harden http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=49846 etc etc etc

[Kay]

Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients.  Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it.  Setting the record straight. 

Latest news on this controversy:

The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.

A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU")  between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."

https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ

The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:

- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.

Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.

The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.

[The_Choose_1]

Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients.  Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it.  Setting the record straight. 

Latest news on this controversy:

The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.

A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU")  between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."

https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ

The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:

- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.

Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.

The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.

Thank you Kay for your info "Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients.  Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it.  Setting the record straight."

[Know Growth]

trolls grow strong when they are fed, MMR.

Paul Harden is a good enough chap I think,  But he's a very good very well connected attorney and he's generally so well liked that it gives him extra cachet in negotiations.

He's certainly been able to take on very unpopular causes as a result of it.

Some attorneys can grow strong when fed.

Similar to  a certain attorney representing Freedom Commerce Centre,Mellow Mushroom and St Johns Village applications.

Easy to track these two, diminishing bloated returns.

Attorneys representing unpopular proposals,substantive revisions to the Citizen's Overlay and other policy dare not pull out the stops in Avondale, because they simply can't,no matter who they are,who they think they are.......or who their clients think they are.
This speaks more to the Avondale Dynamic than any single Attorney. Good for Us!!!


( a personal highlight for me was the Ortega Boatyard episode, just far enough out of RAP Boundary I was basically on my own,after stepping down from the podium before City Council,clear 'Standing' and 'Appeal' position,way too easily lodged within three minutes  , having recited water dependent marine facility/no viable alternative,DCA Rule 9J-5,Paul trailed me out in to the hallway......."What is 9J5??".
Eventually,DCA would see major militant revamp- Urban legend has it that Citizen and Organization interface with DCA was a major driver for revamp....... )