Comments on: The 2011 St. James Buzz

By: J.O.B ZBBC

J.O.B ZBBC — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:41:00 +0000

hey man, good try. you seem like a bitter dude already and i dont think that our internet battling will really resolve anything. i only have to work a few hours or so a day and i usually have thurs – sunday off ( being that i am self employed) . stop by the bike shop when you have a moment and ill fix your bike ( if you have one). maybe we can go to shanty town and have a beer bought with a wallet full of hard earned money opposed to the fictional food stamps. no hard feelings. – john o’brian

By: Jonathan Rotten

Jonathan Rotten — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:19:08 +0000

JOB 20-never
” A future welfare queen in action– building his life into nothing right before your eyes”

By: J.O.B ZBBC

J.O.B ZBBC — Fri, 22 May 2009 05:33:25 +0000

Allegretti/Marchy 2011
“A Bar on every corner!”

Jonathan Rotten 2011
“Internet Politician”

By: biggie tea

biggie tea — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:31:22 +0000

I also dj.

By: thelakelander

thelakelander — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:48:06 +0000

I’m not crazy about the term “gentrification” but most urban neighborhoods come back to life through the blood, sweat and tears of small investors, not big developers or corporate chains.

With that said, the market downturn was the best thing to happen for Springfield. I say this, because the reduction of over-inflated asking prices for blighted property creates opportunity for more small investors to become a part of the community.

By: JasonCDG

JasonCDG — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:24:22 +0000

“Springfield as an idea/experiment in gentrification and renewal is quickly showing itself a failure.”

So because of a downturn in the economy and the failure of an overzealous greedy developer, you think the story of Springfield is finished?

Why don’t we wait until Main Street construction is finished and the economy picks up a bit before judgment is passed down.

I think you’ll see a bunch of small investors and developers make the impact on Springfield, and this economic trouble that’s being face now will actually be better for the neighborhood.

By: jonathan rotten

jonathan rotten — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:10:45 +0000

I for one would like a mayor who has lots of government experience, and who realizes our ENTIRE town has problems, not just downtown and the lack of housing or bars. That is SUCH a narrow issue. Although, to be a little self-contradictory, I do agree that it comes into play in solving the sprawl problem we have here, which must be addressed. And, I was not singling out the one-eyed commentor above, I have heard lots of people throw Tony’s name around as “Oooooh, wouldn’t it be so cool if he were mayor!?”. Having a vision for lifestyle options in Jacksonville, and using a twitter and tumblr page do not make a visionary mayor– sorry. You can love the idea of Springfield, but that is such a narrow slice of our city, and, besides, Springfield as an idea/experiment in gentrification and renewal is quickly showing itself a failure.
And, to whoever says Rick Mullaney can’t read a contract– you are a total idiot. You don’t get to be the general counsel by being stupid and unable to do basic legal work. You may disagree with his decisions, but attacking his intellect makes you look simple-minded.

By: jerry cornwell

jerry cornwell — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:14:43 +0000

the pics drive me up the wall, ennis davis for mayor!

By: jerry cornwell

jerry cornwell — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:13:32 +0000

hardlyable represents the overwhelming majority opinon of jax voters. difficult to accept but true as ive finally realized after 3+ years of trying to make it in downtown

By: thelakelander

thelakelander — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:04:41 +0000

^Jax has been doing what you suggest since the 1950′s and its resulted in the mess we have on our hands today.

There should be some focus on downtown, because it is the face of the community and history has already proven that its unsustainable and a drain on financial resources to develop in a sprawl like manner. In addition, you’ll get more bang for you buck by clustering development as opposed to spreading it out similar to kicking an ant hill.

Nevertheless, throwing money at downtown doesn’t necessarily solve problems or bring vibrancy either. To degree, the best thing for downtown would be for the city to develop an overall vision, stop tearing down buildings, get out of the way and let the private sector take over.

In the end, it would be better to take all the money spent on one trick pony money for major DT redevelopment ideas and throw it into a pot to fund a real regional mass transit system. Do that and the private redevelopment dollars, citywide, will come on their own.