SPAR Opposes Ordinance Changes Associated with the Ability Housing Settlement

[JaxUnicorn]

SPAR has issued their official statement on the proposed ordinance changes outlined as part of the settlement agreement in the Ability Housing and Dept of Justice lawsuit.  One item of note is this part: 

The draft changes to the overlay were made without the input of any community members, and apparently with limited – if any – input from the City's planning department.

Had City officials (Planning Dept, etc.) simply told the Springfield community members demanding that Ability Housing be denied their COU (which by the way, was to use a 12-unit apartment building as a 12-unit apartment building), there would have been no lawsuit, and no changes required to the Springfield overlay.  What is everyone afraid of??


There is another community meeting being held tonight at the Springfield Improvement Association and Archives, located at 210 W 7th Street - 7:00 PM.

Here's a link (verbiage also copied here):  http://www.sparcouncil.org/proposed_changes_to_the_springfield_zoning_overlay

Statement Regarding Proposed Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69

Summary

On Monday evening the Board of Directors of Springfield Preservation and Revitalization Council, Inc. (SPAR) held a special meeting to review proposed City of Jacksonville Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69. The board members in attendance voted unanimously to oppose this legislation, on the grounds that the recommended changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations were drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district. Further, the proposed changes do not accomplish the stated goal of the settlement agreement, which is to protect the rights of disabled citizens to live wherever they choose in Jacksonville. Instead, the effect of the agreement is to single out Springfield to be the default and de facto area in Jacksonville for disabled housing.

(Read below for the full statement)

Background

This legislation relates to proposed settlement agreements negotiated by the City's Office of General Counsel and several parties alleging that certain actions of the City's planning department violated Federal fair housing and disability law. The proposed agreements require significant changes to COJ's zoning code, including a disproportionate number of changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations.

The Springfield Zoning Overlay was established in 2000 through a partnership between the City of Jacksonville and residents to encourage the revitalization of the Springfield neighborhood. After years of study, the zoning overlay identified a concentration of "special uses" (such as rooming houses and treatment facilities) in Springfield as a detriment to positive development and overall health of the community. The zoning overlay sought to address that imbalance by preventing new such special uses from opening within some portions of the overlay area.

The legislation in question mandates changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay that are unnecessary and inappropriate. The draft changes to the overlay were made without the input of any community members, and apparently with limited – if any – input from the City's planning department.

Springfield is a nationally recognized historic district with unique challenges, including 100+ year old infrastructure and traditional development patterns that require consideration. The zoning overlay and related preservation regulations were adopted to protect the valuable historic attributes of the neighborhood. Riverside-Avondale's historic districts are protected by similar, albeit more recent and more comprehensive, ordinances. Historic attributes of other Duval County communities, such as San Marco and Mandarin, are also protected by overlays that limit certain land uses.

SPAR, and the residents of Springfield it represents, understand and respect the need for disabled citizens to be able to live where they choose to live. While the City of Jacksonville should certainly take measures to ensure that disabled individuals are able to live in the neighborhood of their choice, the proposed changes to the Springfield overlay do not accomplish that goal, and disproportionately impact Historic Springfield. Springfield's one square mile is already accessible to the disabled and other disadvantaged individuals who choose to live in the community. Springfield is a diverse neighborhood, with a variety of housing options, the majority of which are affordable for low to moderate income residents. In fact, the average income of Springfield residents is well below the median income in Duval County. Many of these housing options are suitable for – and available to – individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, these opportunities are not currently available in many other parts of Duval County.

We encourage the City of Jacksonville to reject the proposed legislation, and instead to focus on a comprehensive solution that provides housing for disabled citizens and other disadvantaged groups throughout the City.

- SPAR Council Board of Directors


Recommendations

• City Council should require that any changes to Springfield's Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations be made prudently and comprehensively. 


• City planners should collaborate with Springfield residents and the Office of General Counsel to craft revisions that ensure that the overlay protects the valuable historic character of the neighborhood and supports high quality development, while protecting the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home.


• City Council must not approve the proposed settlement agreements so long as they mandate changes to the Springfield overlay that have not been established through an appropriate and thoughtful process.

Opportunities for the public to provide input

• Feb 14th @ 5pm – Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted


• Feb 22nd @ 4:45pm - Land Use & Zoning City Council committee meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.


• Feb 28th  @ 5pm - Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. No public input accepted, but final vote will be held.


• How to provide input via email.

 
TO: JoyceMorgan@coj.net; Ferraro@coj.net; ABowman@coj.net; SWilson@coj.net; LBoyer@coj.net; MattS@coj.net; RGaffney@coj.net; KBrown@coj.net; GarrettD@coj.net; RBrown@coj.net; DBecton@coj.net; DoyleC@coj.net; Gulliford@coj.net; JimLove@coj.net; ABrosche@coj.net; JRC@coj.net; THazouri@coj.net; GAnderson@coj.net; SNewby@coj.net

CC: MayorLennyCurry@coj.net

Subject: 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69

Dear City Council & Mayor Curry,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sincerely,

John & Jane Doe,

1000 Main Street

[strider]

1- the changes DO NOT harm the historic district.

2 - because of the changes there will NOT be this huge number of new facilities. But of course, this was not about a facility, it was always about who was going to live in an apartment building.

3 - This is the same BS that got us here to start with.  The ADA and fair housing laws are not intended to protect the feeling privileged Historic Springfield residents like the SPAR Board, but rather to protect the poor and disabled from them.

4 - I strongly suspect that the Office of General Council is going to say no changes as this language was what enabled the City to get off this easy. Yes, easy, look at New Orleans as an example of what it could have been as well as some of the other settlements over this issue where even the Federal Judges wanted the cities to be hit with huge cash civil settlements.

5 - While they may try to use language that implies otherwise, this is all about WHO, not what and like mentioned above, the laws do not allow you to do that. In addition, if you actually look at the settlement, it is not just Historic Springfield effected but it was only in the Springfield Overlay that the language was so discriminatory that it had to be changed.

6 - One would think the SPAR Council Board would be intelligent enough to know that fighting this will only make it worse.  They should be giving true and thoughtful words of wisdom to the residents about this rather than fanning the flames of stupidity.

[Bill Hoff]

Hi.

So, basically the issue is that the proposed overlay changes contained in the settlement go far beyond what is necessary to address fair housing concerns. They strip even basic protections/structure out of the overlay, which are found in other neighborhood overlays around Jacksonville.

That's because the proposed changes didn't go through the normal Planning/community/vetting process. Thus, it's just being asked that overlay changes go through the normal process - which would actually be very helpful. The Springfield Zoning Overlay needs many updates totally unrelated to the proposed settlement.

I suspect this will happen. We'll see.

[fsquid]

damn

[strider]

Hi.

So, basically the issue is that the proposed overlay changes contained in the settlement go far beyond what is necessary to address fair housing concerns. They strip even basic protections/structure out of the overlay, which are found in other neighborhood overlays around Jacksonville.

That's because the proposed changes didn't go through the normal Planning/community/vetting process. Thus, it's just being asked that overlay changes go through the normal process - which would actually be very helpful. The Springfield Zoning Overlay needs many updates totally unrelated to the proposed settlement.

I suspect this will happen. We'll see.

The Springfield overlay was a bit unique in how it handled various uses, which means it was indeed different than all other areas of Jacksonville.  In actuality, the changes being made to the overlay due to the lawsuit bring it into line with pretty much the rest of the city.  The basic wordage of the settlement also does not just effect Springfield but all of Jacksonville.  That's because, like Stephen said, the so called leadership in Historic Springfield screwed the pooch on this one. It should also be noted that the protections for the historic properties, you know, the ones the City itself likes to often ignore, and most of the basic zoning codes that were unique to Springfield are still there.  New rooming houses are still banned and most other intensive uses still have restrictions and they are only allowed by exception; again pretty much the same as the rest of Jacksonville.

Something that is new and is true now for all of Jacksonville is that no public input is required for the disabled to get "reasonable accommodations" and some zoning exceptions to accommodate those requests.  This was done simply because it has been proven that the City listened to the public to deny the disabled their basic rights. You can blame Jack Meeks mostly for that little change as the laws specify a city can not do that.

During the community meeting last night, I noticed that Ability Housing seemed to be blamed for the changes.  In fact, the community has no one to blame for their loss of say in this but the very people who were leading the meeting last night. 

Also in the settlement is the statement that the fact that there are other areas and locations that could be suitable for the disabled is not a reason to deny the reasonable accommodations.  In other words, the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument is null and void.

Most of the changes are to clarify that the City must actually follow the Federal laws and that things like helping people get help, like transportation services, meal on wheels, medical help, etc. does not constitute an intensive use.  One change is that now, in some cases, even if that help is provided at an on site facility, it is not illegal or what was called a "special use" under the Springfield overlay.

The City also has to go through training and to have people properly qualified to make those reasonable accommodation decisions.

But what does this really mean to not only the Historic District but all of Jacksonville?

Jacksonville has had a pattern of discrimination throughout it's past. Through this settlement it got a few wacks on the butt.  Historic Springfield's overlay was always discriminatory but because the City most often found a way to work through the issues of discrimination  that came up without involving the Feds, it was left alone.  When the City allowed the leadership of Springfield to deny Ability Housing's use of an apartment building as an apartment building only because of who was going to live there and did so at the insistence of the leadership of Springfield, it crossed a line.  The resulting lawsuits appear to be going to cost the City in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 million counting the amounts listed in the settlement, the additional cost of training and personnel and the undisclosed civil settlement with Ability Housing. All because some residents of the one square mile of Historic Springfield were afraid of 12 formless homeless, disabled and possibility veterans moving into an apartment building.  Now does that sound like a good deal to the taxpayers of Jacksonville to you?

It isn't.  So to prevent that from happening again, changes are being made to the zoning code.  Changes that mostly simply insure the rights of those less fortunate among us will be respected in the future.

Councilman Gaffney was at the meeting last night and while he did express support for the residents who want this to be blocked, he also said he was told that this deal is in the best interests of the community and that not all the info was out here.  This, in my mind, means that the DOJ has the proof they need to a much larger settlement if this current settlement is not approved and the case goes onto Federal Court.  As a person interviewed by the DOJ over this issue, I can tell you the investigation was thorough and covered a wider range of issues than just Ability Housing.

Jack Meeks also stated that in his opinion, this case was not like New Orleans, which cost that City many millions of dollars. He thinks this because in New Orleans zoning issue was what he calls a "special use" facility being used as a new special use facility while the Ability Housing issue was about a new, additional special use.   For those that want to believe him please think about this.  Ability Housing was nothing but an apartment building and was MADE to be a special use at the request of Jack Meeks.  More importantly, the zoning issue is actually secondary in this.  The exact same Federal Laws that were ignored in the New Orleans case were ignored here in Jacksonville.  The issue Jack Meeks is trying to invoke is meaningless.  It is the denial of basic civil rights here that matters.  The zoning changes are a result of them being used improperly to deny those rights.  Jacksonville's issue is the same as New Orleans's was and could be just as costly.

I would like to mention something that Claude Moulton said in the meeting last night.  He brought up, of all things, fences. He implied that the community was being harmed because now the facilities once called special uses and the new ones that could be coming could use chain link fences.  The horror of it all.  The truth is simply that the existing facilities, which by the way number 8 or 9, were not allowed to keep existing chain link fences. The vast majority of the existing facilities have already changed out their fences. The overlay currently requires "special Uses" to remove existing chain link fences but under the settlement, that requirement is removed.  So, now, those existing facilities can keep an existing fence, but not put in a new chain link fence and if a facility were to be in a house that has an existing chain link fence, it can keep it.  Just like everyone else in Historic Springfield can.  Imagine that, the disabled and those that service them now will have the same fence rights as every other resident.  The horrors, right?

Michael Troutman stated in the meeting last might that he already had a call from a developer "greatly concerned" about the changes to the overlay.  This was to invoke fear that the values, which have been rising, would be put at risk.  The unspoken truth here is that for decades now the same relatively few rooming houses, half way houses and other non-profits have been in Springfield.  The values have always gone up and down as the overall economy does not based on the number of facilities or disabled living in the community.  In fact, increasing property values makes it less likely the facilities will come and if they do, the costs help insure well run and well built facilities. The reality is that the changes to the overlay will not effect development nor will having a few disabled personas living here hurt property values.

Which brings us to this,  the leadership here in Historic Springfield, meaning the SIAA, SPAR Council, Jack Meeks, ETC could have used this opportunity to truly lead. Instead they have decided to continue to use the tactics of fear mongering and misinformation. Springfield encompasses a larger area than Historic Springfield and has it's share of real problems.  If the leadership worked on those real issues and did not worry about a few disabled persons, the entire city and particularly the Urban Core would be better for it.

[JaxUnicorn]

I streamed last night's Community Meeting via Facebook Live.   Anyone interested in knowing what was said can view it here:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211782765191766&id=1448243269

[sheclown]

Apparently, there was discussion about the legal non-conforming uses last night -- those which were grandfathered in 10 years ago.  And also discussion about sober houses.  The intent is clear here -- to denigrate the legally existing homes, implying that they are bad for the neighborhood and that residents should be in fear of more moving in.

A simple discussion of some of the terms is below.  Recovery houses, rooming houses, sober houses, special uses.  It can all be confusing.  Recovery houses and rooming houses which existed before the overlay are entitled to remain.  These are called "special uses" in the current overlay.  Sober houses are discussed on a thread in this forum.  For the most part, sober houses are newer, set up after the zoning overlay was enacted. 

For a list of the special uses from 2009 and a discussion about them, go here:

Topic: List of "special Uses" in Springfield. (Rooming Houses too!)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6684.0.html


For a discussion on sober houses, go here:  "What is a sober house?" (2010)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7213.0.html

---------------------------------

My thoughts have changed after watching the paying off of government officials, the cowards of local government caving to the hysteria of a few.  I no longer think that "sober houses" ought to have to get a CU.  The city cannot be trusted with this info without discrimination.  Obviously.

My distinction between a recovery house and a sober house is as follows.  The grandfathered "halfway" houses in Springfield are recovery houses.  They do not meet the current zoning requirements of the overlay.  They met them at the time they opened -- some having been opened since the 60s, others since the 80s. 

These grandfathered uses will still be around in any sort of Zoning Overlay which is negotiated with the feds.  The recovery houses are protected as they house persons with disabilities.  The rooming houses are different from the halfway houses in that they do not cater to a protected class of people.  Still, they are grandfathered in as they were in place long before the overlay existed.

The sober houses are of two kinds.  The first kind needs reasonable accommodations to  exist because they do not meet current zoning law and are opened at the time after the overlay was enacted.  They are housing that has more than 5 unrelated people living in a single family home.  They can certainly ask for this reasonable accommodation and they are entitled to it,

see the supreme court case City of Edmonds v. Oxford house.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/725.html

A registry of those who seek reasonable accommodations to exceed local zoning once seemed a reasonable idea.  I no longer think that is valid given the vitriol I have personally witnessed regarding the disabled in Springfield.

However, to my knowledge there are no sober houses in Springfield which exceed this local zoning requirement.

The second kind of sober house is merely a legal rental which houses less than the five unrelated persons the zoning code suggests.  This type of rental is no different than any other type.  There should be no need to register this if any other rental unit in the city is not required to register.  Indeed, there should be no difference in treatment at all.  These lower density sober houses should be able to have their residents live lives without the fear that the neighborhood will take actions against them.

Which brings us to the meeting last night in which the neighborhood assembled to discuss the current disabled housing.  Several handouts were given at the end the meeting including one which discussed "corruption in sober houses" as if this is a thing...only further fear mongering the neighborhood into its former frenzy.

There is a call to action.

   Our Recommendations    

    City Council should require that any changes to Springfield's Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations be made prudently and comprehensively.
     
    City planners should collaborate with Springfield residents and the Office of General Counsel to craft revisions that ensure that the overlay protects the valuable historic character of the neighborhood and supports high quality development, while protecting the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home.
     
    City Council must not approve the proposed settlement agreements so long as they mandate changes to the Springfield overlay that have not been established through an appropriate and thoughtful process.

   How to provide input in-person   
      
      
      

    Feb 14th @ 5pm – Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.

    Feb 22nd @ 4:45pm - Land Use & Zoning City Council committee meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. Public input will be accepted.

    Feb 28th  @ 5pm - Full City Council meeting at City Hall, 1st floor chambers. No public input will be accepted, but a final vote will be held.

<<< Councilmen Gaffney has indicated that he will attempt to defer this issue, which would delay these meetings and may allow more time for the community and city to examine better options. >>>

A zoning overlay which desires to protect " the rights of all who wish to make Springfield their home" --  cannot do that at the expense of the disabled.  Or if it does attempt, it will be at its own peril. 

"As established by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws such as Fair Housing Act take precedence over conflicting state and local laws.  The Fair Housing Act thus prohibits state and local land use and zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under the Act."

Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Nov. 19, 2016

So there is no path available to go where SPAR wants to lead.  No path to prejudice that the city or neighborhood, or any individual,  can take.

[strider]

I want everyone out there to know that Michelle Tappouni was uninvited to the SPAR Council board meeting that decided to fight the settlement.  She is President and but one vote.  The only reason not to want her there is that they knew she would be the voice of reason. Reason says you go with what is right and just and do so with integrity.  Instead, the other board members left her out and went the other way; to the lack of common sense and the inclusion of misinformation and innuendo. Michelle, as President,  gave me hope that SPAR Council could finally find the leadership role it has always been capable of.  Her exclusion proves to me that the other board members wish it to be the same old song; one of exclusion and prejudice against those they decide are beneath them.  It is a sad choice for them and for Historic Springfield.

[sheclown]

I'm searching for information about this...I would love to hear from anyone who has this knowledge.

I'm quite sure that by:

(1) holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA"

(2) targeting a group of disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood, "sober houses" "recovery houses", in a disparaging way --  stating that the neighborhood has too many of them, handing out inflammatory, inaccurate and irrelevant information about sober houses,

(3) and calling the neighborhood to action "speak out against the disabled rights at city council, urge city council to vote against Fair Housing", 

violates Fair Housing.

A neighborhood group is inciting its residents to violate the civil rights of their neighbors.

This action on their part is causing great harm to people who are currently struggling with their disease.  To marginalize people -- to make them feel they are a blight to the community -- has extremely harmful effects on sobriety.

I struggle with this constantly, and have for 10 years --  to infom the people that I work with that the neighborhood is actively fighting their right to live in Springfield so that they are prepared when they leave their front door.  Or do I not bring it up and let them enter Three Layers, Uptown, of God Forbid a neighborhood meeting where they find themselves the subject of the meeting.

This is a thing.

[remc86007]

I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?

[Bill Hoff]

I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?

I'll try this again.

The issue is that the proposed changes to the overlay did not go through the typical process of Planning Dept & community input, therefore the draft is deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville.

That's why the community is upset. Not because it may be tweaked to address Fair Housing concerns, but that the proposal to do so was not done in a thoughtful, expert manner. It's a hack job, as any Planner or land use attIorney would tell you.

Hope that clears things up.

If you read the statement from SPAR, it says as much, though perhaps in more technical language.

[remc86007]

Thanks for the response. I just glanced through the 2017-36 revisions, perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how the draft is "deeply flawed" or a "hack job." Could you provide specifics? Reading the post on the SPAR website doesn't clarify the specifics issue for me either. It seems to read largely as a simple redraft to better conform the ordinances with the ADA.

I completely understand the dismay over the lack of ordinary procedure, but my inclination is that the community forwent their right to such procedure when they brought about (or at least failed to prevent) this lawsuit against the city.

[sheclown]

Here's the thing.

The neighborhood does not get the chance to determine its willingness to end the discrimination against the disabled.

Because...well...Tuesday night for example.

Or rather, it does so at its own loss.  No one to blame but the Fab Four:  Meeks, Trautmann, Molton, Cudd with the aid and resources of SIAA and SPAR.

[strider]

I just don't understand the nimbyist's concern. Springfield, on it's current development and gentrification trajectory, isn't going to be an affordable place to have these sorts of places in a few years anyway. Why engender all of this hate over a "problem" (I hate to even use that term) that future land values alone will "solve"?

I'll try this again.

The issue is that the proposed changes to the overlay did not go through the typical process of Planning Dept & community input, therefore the draft is deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville.

That's why the community is upset. Not because it may be tweaked to address Fair Housing concerns, but that the proposal to do so was not done in a thoughtful, expert manner. It's a hack job, as any Planner or land use attIorney would tell you.

Hope that clears things up.

If you read the statement from SPAR, it says as much, though perhaps in more technical language.

Thanks for the response. I just glanced through the 2017-36 revisions, perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how the draft is "deeply flawed" or a "hack job." Could you provide specifics? Reading the post on the SPAR website doesn't clarify the specifics issue for me either. It seems to read largely as a simple redraft to better conform the ordinances with the ADA.

I completely understand the dismay over the lack of ordinary procedure, but my inclination is that the community forwent their right to such procedure when they brought about (or at least failed to prevent) this lawsuit against the city.

The ordinance changes only selected things from the original overlay.  For instance, all ACLFs, Group care homes, Halfway houses and rooming houses that were in existence at the time the overlay were grandfathered, labeled as "Special Uses" and required to follow a particular set of rules to be allowed to legally operate.  this "special Use" category only appears in the Springfield Overlay, no where else. New businesses meeting the definition of the "Special Use" category are banned from  Historic Springfield. The changes eliminate the term Special Use and all references to it.

Rooming houses remain as a banned use unless grandfathered and those must still follow various special rules but are no longer labeled as "special". They also replaced a rather long and completely unenforceable list of how to tell if a place was a rooming house with a much simpler but probably no more enforceable one.

As to the dreaded Halfway houses, group care homes, etc, they are now still grandfathered and new ones are only allowed by exception. It should be noted that low density group care homes (6 and under) have always been allowed by right; this change is to allow higher density ones; again, only by exception. Pretty much just like in the rest of Jacksonville.

A large change is that now the City must send people off to be trained in how to deal with the various ADA and Fair Housing laws that the City was talked into breaking over the Ability Housing issue. And the City must have a specialist to make "Reasonable Accommodation" determinations. Public hearings are no longer required for the various accommodations or even an exception to the zoning code to accommodate the disabled needs but are still optional if the applicant agrees to it.

An important statement here is...."in making the [reasonable accommodation] determination, it shall not be a factor whether there exist other neighborhoods or dwellings which could accommodate the disabled person." This basically eliminates the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument many wish to use.

The settlement wordage also tries to insure no one can do a PUD and make that PUD remove or reduce anyone's civil rights as protected under ADA and Fair Housing. Finally, the settlement makes it clear that just because a disabled person or a those providing housing,  may require various services, like Meals on Wheels, counseling  ETC, that  use of the dwelling can not be declared  an illegal use under zoning.

In other words, Ability Housing can come into Springfield and buy a 12 unit apartment building and rent it to the formerly homeless, the disabled, veterans and do so completely legally just like it has been in the rest of Jacksonville.   They do not have to notify anyone they are doing it, you know, just like any other investor does not have to notify the community when they buy an apartment building.

All of the traditional protections like you can't just build anything you want, you can't have new chain link fences, ETC are still in place and untouched.  Of course since it was discriminatory, the Special Uses which could not KEEP a chain link fence, now can keep it, just like every other person can.

The only people who can possibly think this settlement does harm to the Historic District are the same ones who still do not understand that the various ADA and Fair housing laws were not passed to protect their right to exercise their self perceived privileged but rather to protect the less fortunate among us from them.

Here's a comment made on Facebook by SPAR Council's ED, "We can work with the City to ensure that the grant application includes requirements that will prevent a developer like Ability from trying to sneak something into a neighborhood like they did with Cottage."  She went onto try to say it was about the what, meaning insuring that the buildings were properly done, but I do not see that in her comment.  I see the exact same sentiment that got us here to this settlement to begin with: We must stop things like Ability Housing.

SPAR Council's position paper essentially puts forth the same sentiment. And does it best to make Springfield the victim.  The SIAA meeting went even further and tried to go back to the scare tactics used when Ability Housing first tried to buy the apartment building on Cottage. A resident described the meeting this way on Facebook: "Pitchforks - that is what this meeting was about..."

The leadership of Historic Springfield is intending to do everything they can to be able to continue to discriminate against those they do not like.  The residents need to step forward and say enough is enough and stop the nonsense before it costs the City far more than the few have already. SPAR Council and the SIAA and folks like Jack Meeks only have any say or power if you give it to them. 

[strider]

Nothing inflammatory here!!!

from SIAA website:

Historic Springfield Community Meeting
Regarding possible settlement of lawsuits pertaining to Ability Housing's previously proposed project at 139 Cottage Avenue.
Tuesday, January 31st at 7pm
210 West 7th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206

The City of Jacksonville is moving towards a settlement with Ability Housing. The Settlement Agreement and Release has already been signed by Sam Mousa, Chief Administrative Officer and this was introduced to City Council by the request of the Office of General Council at last Tuesday's meeting in the form of three Bills. (2017-0036, 2017-0068, 2017-0069).

It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!

Each bill will go to several committees prior to being voted on by City Council. There will be time for public comment. It's extremely important that we show how much we care about our neighborhood and urge City Council oppose all three.

There will be a community meeting at 7pm on Tuesday, January 31st explaining the process, what this means for the community, and what you can do.

Unable to make the meeting? We will be sending out updates as they become available.