SPAR revolt?

[sheclown]

In regards to the organization of SPAR, I agree with Soxfans assessment. I think there needs to be some things addresses and fixed, and I think that Alex being encrouaged out the door is total BS, but I am not ready to get out the pitch fork and torches and start burning effigies of "developers" along Main St.

That generally sums up my take on the matter, too.

I'm a lone wolf in this dog fight. I'm not meeting with any group or part of any faction. After meeting with Alex, at his request shortly before he resigned, the JaxByDefault household volunteered to help SPAR with a legal clean-up of the conflicts in their Articles of Incorporation and bylaws. Our donation of services was refused by other SPAR leaders as Alex was told not to worry about those issues. To demonstrate that there's no grudge held here on our end: the offer still stands. Alternatively, they could hire an impressive downtown firm at $350 per hour to perform the same service. (Note: SPAR's 990s list no expenses for legal fees thanks to the pro bono  services of neighborhood and board member lawyers. By contrast, they spent over $1200 on independent accounting fees in tax year 2007.)

I respect several members of the current SPAR board. I'm less than impressed with many of SPAR's actions over the last year and a half, but think that if the organization is willing to listen to criticism, acknowledge some of their problems, and address some of these concerns, than it will be better for Springfield as a whole.

However, I do have many concerns about SPARs current urban planning and development accumen. This is a critical time for the neighborhood's development over the next decade (and beyond).

That was/is a very generous thing for you to do.  It also points out what a great job Alex was doing.  He's a  --here's a problem...here's a solution-- kinda guy.

[FinnegansWake]

If I am not mistaken, JaxByDefault, because at the time SPAR was still getting City grant money, SPAR was required to do annual audits for the city. Finnegans can correct me if I am wrong as he was the treasurer at the time.

Correct. Required and complied with. I have not been the treasurer for awhile now, so I cannot attest to any more audits. But Mark F. was a far better treasurer than I and kept the books in good shape.

Phil

[strider]

If anyone wants to see a good discussion on how people feel about Main Street and the what and why of the planning, you can start by going to http://sparcouncil.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3872&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
The first 2 to 3 pages of the thread are on subject.  And Downtownparks, I'd like the Main Street project to "fall on my shoulders" as it is a big plus to those who actually got it done, but I can not take that credit.

Also, if SPAR Council only paid $1200.00 for a full audit, they did pretty good.  I remember that it was indeed required and we used to budget $2500.00 for it. When you consider that the grant was for $50K, the few hoops you had to jump through were very much worth it. I believe there is still money out there, but from a different federal source so perhaps research could be done to see if SPAR Council could get some of it for operating expenses. The current board may not want to though as you do have to spend the money the way you say you will or they won't give it to you.  You can't just decide to change things on your personal whim. You have to be accountable for how those funds are spent.

Jaxbydefault, that was a very generous offer and one they should have taken you up on.  As far as I know, the only lawyer on the board is Claude Moulton and he is real estate law.  From the state of the by-laws, he is not well versed in corporate law.  We do have the right to ask why they did not take you up on the offer.  I seem to remember that they stated that one of the reasons they changed the by-laws was so that they could appoint the right, needed talent on the board.  Here we have an issue where the by-laws have been shown to contradict themselves and a lawyer or lawyers have offered to help free, and they refuse.  Hmmmm.  Makes me wonder what they are hiding and what is really going on.

[FinnegansWake]

Yeah, I've heard that...so if this is true (and yes, I heard other members were in agreement about the election or rather, lack there of) then why did things not change? Why then, was it only Alex that was bullied into resigning? Why haven't those others who felt that not having elections was wrong, not made a firm stance or stood up in support of Alex? Most of all...why are they still sitting on the board...just how much support did they really express or feel...makes me wonder. For to me, since Alex is the only one who was bullied into resigning, and the others who claim to support the need for elections...why weren't they bullied off the board, or why didn't they leave on their own in a show of support? I would suggest that it's because they have their own agenda which is more important than doing the right thing about the changing of bylaws and/or not having elections.

My last meeting was in October (this was the meeting Strider attended). I had requested that elections be placed on the agenda and when it did not show up on the printed agenda I brought it up anyway. The issue was briefly discussed, but not really to my satisfaction. It was also pointed out by me that elections WERE required, after I counted on my fingers the remaining Board members that remained after one left for health reasons. It was decided to discuss it further at the next meeting (which kind of pissed me off...but it happens).

Alex had a private meeting with a Board member, not at a Board meeting. I wonder if anyone will bring this issue up at the next Board meeting? Like, "hey, where is Alex and why did he feel the need to resign?" I can't speak for what the individual Board members have done to express their opinion on this issue. I asked him to stay on the Board to keep contributing and to, if anything, call the Board member's bluff.

And to your question asking why people did not resign en masse...there have things that I have agreed with and disagreed with over the past 3 years. There were times I was pretty pissed at some of the actions of the Old Guard (long gone by now). But I was not going to quit the Board just because I was pissed off. I felt there was way too much work to be done. I was not at the last Board meeting but I believe the elections were discussed and they will be held in January. This did not happen by magic, but by people on the Board stating their case.

And that is a rather gigantic leap of logic that because people did not resign en masse they have their own agenda. It's called being mature and possessing the desire to work from within to change things.

Phil

[FinnegansWake]

Also, if SPAR Council only paid $1200.00 for a full audit, they did pretty good.  I remember that it was indeed required and we used to budget $2500.00 for it. When you consider that the grant was for $50K, the few hoops you had to jump through were very much worth it.

For some reason the amount $4k sticks in my head. It was still a good price (I got 5 quotes) and the CPA who performed the audit went above and beyond and did an excellent job.

Phil

[zoo]

SPAR would likely be involved with city issues like FCCJ's expansion, public transit planning, and downtown redevelopment. If there was a plan, more SPAR board members and neighborhood citizens would understand why the area needs increased density throughout, not just single-family homes.

JBD, you make good suggestions - so good, in fact, they are consistent with what SPAR has been doing! Here are some details:

SPAR has had positive working relationships with FCCJ Downtown Campus President, Edyth Abdullah, and Executive Dean, Linda Fife, for several years. FCCJ has openly been amenable to many suggestions SPAR has made. However, they have a board, and limited budgets, just like SPAR, and SPAR is not in a position to make FCCJ do anything. If you have relationships/learning/influence that can expedite FCCJ's planning and increase their engagement further, please offer that!

Re: transit, SPAR has attended at least 3 meetings since summer 2007 with JTA representatives, including Mike Miller, Michael Blaylock, and staffers from the transit planning and operations depts. The result of these meetings has been an early 2008 application for federal grant funding for the Springfield trolley route, set to begin in Fall 2009. SPAR has also made repeated requests, via the newsletter and forum board, for community members to attend and participate in any JTA public meetings that affect Springfield's transit interests (i.e., FCCJ Rosa Parks station meetings, and input on BRT route up Boulevard/Jefferson and State/Union). I have attended some of these meetings and find, other than Louise, I am the only Springfielder there.

Going to conventions to sell the neighborhood to national retailers evidences that several members of the SPAR leadership do not understand how national retailers choose potential locations.

The need for increased density is something SPAR has understood since taking part in the Retail Development Task Force meetings in Summer/Fall 2006 (engaging those attempting to grow retail downtown). Retail attraction is not just based on quantity of numbers, but quality of numbers, as well - something SPAR also seems to understand, as the org has spent the past 3 years (2006-2008) trying to gather demographic information that accurately reflects this changing community. JBD, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that many community members don't understand the importance of density and demographics, as there is often quite a bit of complaining about receiving and being asked to fill out surveys. Another thing that many don't want to accept is that density doesn't happen overnight, or with the wave of a magic wand - it takes time, and developers.

SPAR is not working that closely with downtown redevelopment folks, as the JEDC has made it quite clear they are not interested in working with Springfield. Springfield is not included in their definition of downtown, is not part of their BID or their CRA. JEDC is the master developer for downtown, insists that downtown has to happen before Springfield, and views the residential success Springfield has achieved as a competitive threat (because #s and density matter). Again, if you have relationships/learning/influence that can change the minds of Ron Barton, Paul Crawford and the board of the JEDC, please join the effort!

SPAR has been suggesting, for at least 2 years, that NOW is the time to establish a BID for the commercial corridors. It hasn't for two reasons:
1. The political climate in Jacksonville makes it unlikely that Springfield would get the support to get such an endeavor passed, and;
2. Springfield small businesses do not support the extra expense.

SPAR is further legitimizing to engage interests that have viewed it as a collection of LOLAs, and to compete with further threats to the community's progress (Brooklyn, JEDC's pet project). The back and forth on this board doesn't just confirm the outsiders' views of Springfield as a nest of bickering neighbors, it does damage to ANY neighborhood group's ability to be taken seriously. Other than your post, I've seen little evidence that anyone gives a thought to the perception of Springfield by those outside the community! Well they should, as Springfield is not a self-supporting island.

And I will reiterate that all of this information re: what SPAR has been doing has been available to anyone who wants it - and in some cases, was delivered to member doorsteps through the newsletter! Show up at SPAR's offices and make a request for it. You may not get it right that second (the folks there are actually working!), but expect they will make an effort to gather the information you request. That is the way it has always worked in my experience with SPAR.

[JaxByDefault]

the only lawyer on the board is Claude Moulton and he is real estate law.  From the state of the by-laws, he is not well versed in corporate law.  ...  Makes me wonder what they are hiding and what is really going on.

These are really simple issues that anyone with a law degree or relevant business experience can handle. Claude Moulton is more than competent to handle these types of legal matters. He's a fine attorney.

Sitting down with the Articles and bylaws, what becomes most evident is that they have been tinkered with overtime without making sure they are still in accord. While the bylaws have been amended, I don't think anyone has checked the articles since 2002 (or long before). It's not the most important issue for an organization as the likelihood of facing a derivative suit by members is almost nil, but tidy legal is like tidy accounting -- it let's everyone know where things stand.

As for the recent bylaws changes, there is no dispute that the leadership pursued them the wrong way. As I've said before, if LISC wanted to changes in the organizational structure to ensure institutional memory, then changes should have been proposed, publicized, and given an opportunity for membership discussion. I think some of the changes would have withstood membership scrutiny if explained; others, like the governance committee getting to decide a slate of candidates, likely would not have.

[JaxByDefault]

Zoo,

Alas, you and Louise were not the only people to represent Springfield's interest at transit meetings. I am part of an organization that has representation at almost every public JTA meeting, has pushed JTA to reconsider potentially damaging proposals, and advocates rail transit in Jacksonville.

I am dubious of SPAR's reliance on the Ulrich study over the MetroEdge study, which I think paints as clearer, more honest, and more workable picture of the neighborhood. There is significant development and change happening on Main, but none of it in the historic district. All of Main street's woes cannot be attributed to economic downturn and construction. The Cesery project is going ahead as it has been in the works for years, but for a myriad of reasons other developers were not yet attracted to developing this area. Also remember that we are dealing with road construction now because some members of the community did not want to deal with it while Springfield hosted the Symphony Show House.

Most national retailers will not take a chance here until indies are successful for a number of years. Bloc development grants, property tax freezes and abatements for those restoring and revitalizing commercial property, and other incentives are the best immediate means of putting businesses into the existing fabric of Main Street. There needs to be more attention paid to organic growth while chasing larger-scale projects. As many nationals also location match, there are many that will not enter a neighborhood until after another business with similar location criteria. The population of Historic Springfield alone is not enough to support a lot of retail. Connectivity is vital.

You will get no argument from me that this city's government is terrible at urban planning and development. There are numerous city proposals on the table that are damaging to the urban core and Springfield in the long run.

[uptowngirl]

Going to the SPAR office to get information is not alwasy feasible. Some of us are chained to our desks and phones. Posting or emailing is a better option, but when emails and phone calls are not returned, this does not work.

A lot of us "are working too", the same or longer hours than the Spar Office!

If a drop in can be handled, then an email or phone call should be even easier, it takes less time and allows the office to research and respond on their time frame. The only issue comes up with an extended (there should be some type of acceptable SLA like most businesses have) or no response at all. Really, to try to demand people call or visit during normal working hours is a little unreasonable in this day and age of phones, email, and websites.

[zoo]

Alas, you and Louise were not the only people to represent Springfield's interest at transit meetings. I am part of an organization that has representation at almost every public JTA meeting, has pushed JTA to reconsider potentially damaging proposals, and is involved in lobbying for rail transit in Jacksonville.

Glad to hear someone else has been there, although I don't recall any specific Springfield questioning from anyone other than Louise - have we ever met? If not, we should, so all efforts can be coordinated and presented from a position of stronger community support.

I am dubious of SPAR's reliance on the Ulrich study over the MetroEdge study, which I think paints as clearer, more honest, and more workable picture of the neighborhood.

I have seen no evidence of anyone relying on one report more than any other (and if there was, it would be in favor of the MetroEdge study, which was conducted by a group with much experience in the urban commercial redevelopment space). All of the data collected in recent years makes up the community's story, not any one piece of it.

There is significant development and change happening on Main, but none of it in the historic district. All of Main street's woes cannot be attributed to economic downturn and construction. The Cesery project is going ahead as it has been in the works for years, but for a myriad of reasons other developers were not yet attracted to developing this area.

Other developers have been attracted and interested, and have been driven away by 3 of the myriad of other reasons, that have also been discussed ad infinitum on this forum and others. 1. Elevated valuation by those willing to sell (Uniform Man is a good example); 2. Unmotivated/unskilled ownership, and; 3. Uninhabitable space are the primary problems affecting the south end of our commercial corridor. In the recently posted Springfield Development Assessment, some properties and pricing in this section of the commercial strip were listed, and I'm hopeful some in the development community will take a second (or third, or fourth) swing at some of them.

Also remember that we are dealing with road construction now because some members of the community did not want to deal with it while Springfield hosted the Symphony Show House.

Actually, the reason 5th-12th didn't happen earlier has also been mentioned on this board, and it wasn't because of the Symphony Showhomes (although I'm sure many a Symphony supporter was glad to not have to drive through the suspension-killing, dust-bowl that is our current Main St). The COJ had not budgeted appropriately for the 1st OR 2nd phases of the project, and had to determine where and when they could find funding to resume the improvement.

Bloc development grants, property tax freezes and abatements for those restoring and revitalizing commercial property, and other incentives are the best immediate means of putting businesses into the existing fabric of Main Street.

Totally agree, and if you ask SPAR, I'm sure they would say the same. I have attended meetings with COJ exploring the ideas of BIDS, property tax freezes and abatements, and development grants. In this economic climate, the first two don't stand much of a chance (again, if you have the necessary influence, please use it to fix that).

Development grants do exist through the Northwest Jacksonville Economic Development Trust Fund, which SPAR and SAMBA promote in their literature. Premier Pharmacy used it, Bill Cesery used it, Azar Sausage has used it, and SRG will use it. When it comes to smaller businesses on the corridor, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

Connectivity is vital.

You will get no argument from me that this city's government is terrible at urban planning and development. However, there are numerous city proposals on the table that are damaging to the urban core and Springfield in the long run.

This is a chorus we've all been singing for some time (btw, I don't know if the city is terrible at it, as much as it is driven by geographically-driven political interests - the GOBN). Maybe if we keep singing connectivity together, the City Council will listen.

[strider]

This post is just so Zoo doesn't have the last word.....and to remind everyone that this thread is about.....what the meeting on Dec 4th is supposed to be about.

[AlexS]

Alex had a private meeting with a Board member, not at a Board meeting. I wonder if anyone will bring this issue up at the next Board meeting? Like, "hey, where is Alex and why did he feel the need to resign?" I can't speak for what the individual Board members have done to express their opinion on this issue. I asked him to stay on the Board to keep contributing and to, if anything, call the Board member's bluff.

I did not feel the meeting was so private. It was supposed to be the SPAR president and chair of governance committee. The president did not show due to family matters. The content of the meeting however seemed very orchestrated.

[jbm32206]

I'm not at all surprised

[JaxByDefault]

"SPAR has had positive working relationships with FCCJ Downtown Campus President, Edyth Abdullah, and Executive Dean, Linda Fife, for several years."

This is promising. Why doesn't SPAR fill board vacancies with someone from FCCJ, or the commercial corridor north of the historic district, or a downtown development group? This would encourage dialog outside of the historic district, promote neighborhood connectivity, and allow for joint development planning. Also, it would be a far better use for appointment powers than continuing to replace elected members with former board members and friends who all happen to agree with the executive leadership.

"SPAR has attended at least 3 meetings since summer 2007 with JTA representatives, including Mike Miller, Michael Blaylock, and staffers from the transit planning and operations depts. The result of these meetings has been an early 2008 application for federal grant funding for the Springfield trolley route, set to begin in Fall 2009."

While JTA's faux trolley to be is not an optimal form of transit, a service similar to the line that operates in Riverside could work well for the neighborhood. I would encourage you meet with some of the members of MetroJacksonville to discuss routing and establish a system that could feed into possible rail development. I would also highly encourage SPAR to support rail in Jacksonville. 

"The need for increased density is something SPAR has understood since taking part in the Retail Development Task Force meetings in Summer/Fall 2006 ….Retail attraction is not just based on quantity of numbers, but quality of numbers… many community members don't understand the importance of density and demographics.. Another thing that many don't want to accept is that density doesn't happen overnight, or with the wave of a magic wand - it takes time, and developers."

Density may not occur overnight, but there is no question that some aspects of the current overlay are counterproductive to neighborhood development. Density does not have to occur only at the hands of developers. The promotion of conversion of residential structures to single-family homes destroys density.

Duplexes, townhomes, and apartments do not diminish property values and they are a necessary part of dense urban living. Why not permit people who purchase a long vacant structure to keep it a multi-unit property? People are forced to put a second door on their exterior if their home was once a duplex -- why not encourage those properties to remain or be converted back into duplexes? This is a pro density policy that does not require developers, is beneficial for the neighborhood, and in no way destroys the historic fabric of the community.

The overlay needs further revision to address live-work units and other urban hybrids. Otherwise, we slow developers and renovators by making them go through the PUD process. It also makes the neighborhood appear as though our leadership is not keeping on the cusp of development trends.

Louise has bragged before that Springfield is becoming less dense with larger single-family homes. She may have seen the light on urban density issues since, but the attitude remains pervasive in the neighborhood and among some of its leaders.

Your "quality of numbers" argument brings up another problem. Historic Springfield has a population of 6,000. Many national retailers and service providers need a service base of 20-30,000 to invest in a neighborhood. Springfield's retail base will therefore always be dependent on our surrounding neighborhoods. There are very successful businesses that are currently working on Main that draw from the entirety of the surrounding area. They serve the needs of the actual, not perceived or target-surveyed community. (For example, the MetroEdge study indicated that Springfield currently had all of the restaurants that the immediate community could support.)

If SPAR's development goal is to take Springfield as an isolated island of people with professional incomes and make it an upscale destination, then it would need to attract boutique retail, hipster bars, art galleries, and restaurants that offer something unique. Suburban standards and national retailers will not draw people from San Marco, Riverside, Avondale, or the suburbs. The start up costs of these businesses are high, especially when shouldering renovations costs.  Hence, without concrete small business funding vehicles, cheaper commercial rents, and susbtantial owner investment in the existing commercial fabric, this is economically difficult to achieve within 5 years.

SPAR's immediate development goals need to be "urban scale," not just "upscale"

"SPAR has been suggesting, for at least 2 years, that NOW is the time to establish a BID for the commercial corridors. It hasn't for two reasons:
1. The political climate in Jacksonville makes it unlikely that Springfield would get the support to get such an endeavor passed, and;
2. Springfield small businesses do not support the extra expense."

This neighborhood counts as residents at least: one active registered lobbyist, two individuals with former lobbying and/or community organizing experience, one with state legislative experience, two professional grant writers and professional fundraisers, three developers, and umpteen lawyers, bankers, and business people. SPAR is wasting the resources of many neighborhood talents by failing to engage the community.

At this point, SPAR needs to decide if it wants to become a CDO and shift its focus or if it wants to maintain its current structure and mission and structure. It is obvious that the organization has moved away from preservation as a chief objective, leaving a huge void that I hope another organization can fill.


Other than your post, I've seen little evidence that anyone gives a thought to the perception of Springfield by those outside the community! Well they should, as Springfield is not a self-supporting island.

SPAR has some significant self-created handicaps of negative perception to overcome within the city and among local business owners and developers. They would do well to acknowledge and address these rather than dismissing criticism as the product of people not committed to their neighborhood.

People who have invested in homes and businesses here care deeply about the perception of this neighborhood to outsiders. SPAR speaks for Springfield in many venues; we have a vested interest in making sure the organization meets its goals, acts ethically, spends donated funds wisely, represents the interests of the whole neighborhood, and supports the best possible development plan for the area.

[Pi]

Very well said JBD. The dismissive attitude that some of the board members have taken must end.