Unfortunately it was not like this. Credit: farlane
On Monday I asked the Times Union to please send someone to cover the Land Use Map meeting. While the didn’t officially send someone, the TU did represent at the meeting. Jonathan Bennett, the person behind the TU Twitter user @Jaxdotcom and concerned Riverside resident, attended and sent this writeup.
The meeting this evening was surprisingly informative, if sparsely attended.
Besides myself, there were 8 or 9 other people there, mostly RADO/RAP people, and Matt, the editor of Bike Jax (nice guy).
In short, this meeting was a way for COJ to learn about Riverside, Avondale, and what their residents want from future land use changes. If people want to really get involved with how their communities will look, work and feel in the near future, this seems to be the opportunity.
One thing to make a note of - land use changes (as they are being defined here) are more general ideas about a community and how development, or the lack thereof, would best serve the existing community. Zoning issues, which are separate issues, are the details of land use - the height of buildings, number of buildings per block, etc.) Essentially, what the COJ is talking about here are large, general ideas about a community - not specific how wide the sidewalks should be.
A couple of things that stood out to me - the COJ team handed out surveys, and Shariff mentioned that the surveys would be used as scientific evidence in their land use change plans, not merely anecdotal suggestions from residents. That is, residents who become involved and fill out the surveys are directly affecting future land use plans. If it really works like that, it’s a cool approach.
Also, Shariff stressed the need for the COJ, JTA, FDOT, MPO and other local acronyms to work together. While I certainly don’t know the details, there seems to be a disconnect between those organizations and how they all approach Jacksonville’s needs. It seems like Shariff and Co. will be working on fixing those disparities as well.
The COJ team has hosted and will continue to host these open-to-the-community discussions around Jacksonville as they work on the plan. From what I heard tonight and read in the TU lately, they have held a series of similar meetings across the area to encourage input. Once they have gathered enough information, they will formalize their land use changes to the city and state governments.
From the COJ side of things, Shakeeb Shariff led the discussion and fielded questions. He’s a relatively young guy and I was impressed with his willingness to sit down with a community and take the heat for other people’s poor urban development plans. Shariff and Co. seemed genuinely concerned with hearing from the communities - he has led at least one other community meeting, down in Mandarin a few weeks ago. Shariff said he is willing to set up the same presentation for other people/groups. His information is sshariff@coj.net and 904.630.7221.
Hope that helps. To get involved, people can visit these sites:
COJ Community Planning
COJ Community Planning (future land-use map)
or E-mail “questions, comments or concerns” here: communityplanning@coj.net
Oh, and there’s supposed to be a comment blog for vision plan updates here: http://www.zyscovich.com. But I can’t find anything useful on that site.
If they are truly going to use those surveys in that manner then I’m all about attending those meetings. It’s a little unmotivating when you think you put the time and effort to attend/participate in a program that has no bearing on anything.
On another topic we recently did a post on the new transit-oriented development (TOD) in San Marco. If interested here is the link:
http://www.whatsupjacksonville.com/?p=141
I was there representing myself and family as a resident of Riverside. I was glad that the planning department wanted our views but it was a bust in terms of turnout. The point of the meeting is to discuss how some of the categories which are now on the comprehensive plan map could be merged into larger categories. This would simplify one step for development because the state review would only be for the larger categories. Zoning changes which are approved locally would include all the smaller changes like going from one density to another within residential category. Still don’t understand where the historic overlays come into the picture.
When you consider that over 2000 changes have been made to the land use plan - about 65-80 per year in recent times- this could have a dramatic effect on the public process and the land use map.
One really interesting moment for me was the discussion about the coordination (lack of it) between the planning department, the MPO and the DOT.
The turnout is always as good as the agencies want it with only slight improvements due to Blogger/citizens who care. They have the means to make all interested parties aware. But you won’t get 2000 land use changes that way. Thanks for going and reporting back!