I have lived in Jacksonville for 58 of my almost 84 years. I have watched marvelous brick and incredible stone buildings razed by the tasteless, uninformed, provincial "leaders" of govt, committees of idiots, and developers. Ulterior motives abound!.I lived enough of my life in the amazing city of Richmond and so expected my new city of Jacksonville to have a somewhat similar ethic. Alas, they are polar opposites. Jacksonville will tear down a remarkable 100 year old building and then leave the lot vacant in perpetuity. Or maybe there's a great three story clapboard house in LaVilla. You turn your head and poof, it's gone. Only to be replaced -MAYBE- by some awful creations of sheet rock and fake wood. And the motives behind some of the demolished area are disgusting. All those adorable houses on Monroe were ripped away so the new palm-lined drive from I-95 to the football stadium would be more impressive. What is this ? Mesopotamia? But the real reason was racist to the core. Wayne, thank you for pulling us along on this almost unrequited quest to save what's left of the Grandmother buildings... the elders of architecture. And thank you, Sherry, for tickling our quick, stirring the pot, revving our engines. And thanks to my fellow responders below. I can count on them to rev my own engine....
Perhaps if the DIA/City had not spoiled almost every entity proposing to do business in Jacksonville with the promise of "attractive incentives" then maybe those entities wouldn't be prone to keeping their hand out. Witness the comment by Council Person Ken Amaro; "If we start here, we might as well do it for every other developer who comes along". What Mr. Amaro doesn't seem to realize is that the precedent for "handouts" was set many moons ago - and those "gifts" have been getting bigger and bigger through the years. It's as if we have to continually pay out (and plead) for our dance card to have any takers.
Maybe Mr. Atkins is a little deluded in thinking he can just keep asking for more - hopefully not. But at this point the clock-is-ticking aspect of having to have an agreement signed this month might be a bridge too far.
Additionally, earlier last year, after seeing the buildings left without any window coverings, I knew that it wouldn't be long for the threat of demolition to rear its ugly head. When a building is left prey to the elements, it's life and structural integrity rapidly declines - and the Trio is probably past hospice and now on life-support (?). I truly hope not.
I think Mr. Carlucci's label of "emergency" remains apt. I also think Mr. Carlucci should find another appellation other than "damn horribles" lest the nay-sayers agree that those "horribles" win out.
Council sent it back to DIA to negotiate and ‘get to yes’. Boyer has some tough instructions there given that she and DIA first punted the deal to Council, then subsequently weighed in on the deal as reckless and expressed a lack of confidence in the developer. Council can hold her and DIA responsible for getting to yes; could Boyer’s role as CEO be on the line if she and DIA fail to succeed in their marching instructions? Then it’s up to us as citizens to hold council responsible getting to yes. This project offers tremendous civic and economic benefits.
The stadium, not so much...a billion seems a lot to pay for a structure and surrounding venue that will only be used what, a dozen times a year, for its intended purpose? And whose costs we the taxpayers will bear while Mr Khan reaps the vast majority of the economic benefits.
It's interesting that the DIA punted to Council earlier and now wants to say "Never mind, we want it back." It's always easier with government - especially in this city - to say "No" rather than find a solution.
I emailed the at-large councilmen about the Laura Street Trio but they did not respond. Councilman Boylan *did* respond. Perhaps we need to find someone else to take on the project, as if there *is* anyone else to take on the project. His response has an inordinate delay in putting the project in motion baked into it. The city bought the trio from an investor who threatened to demolish the trio in the late '90s. And then did nothing with it. Here we are a quarter-century later, back again with threats to demolish the buildings. Once again, the city kicks the can down the street.
I have lived in Jacksonville for 58 of my almost 84 years. I have watched marvelous brick and incredible stone buildings razed by the tasteless, uninformed, provincial "leaders" of govt, committees of idiots, and developers. Ulterior motives abound!.I lived enough of my life in the amazing city of Richmond and so expected my new city of Jacksonville to have a somewhat similar ethic. Alas, they are polar opposites. Jacksonville will tear down a remarkable 100 year old building and then leave the lot vacant in perpetuity. Or maybe there's a great three story clapboard house in LaVilla. You turn your head and poof, it's gone. Only to be replaced -MAYBE- by some awful creations of sheet rock and fake wood. And the motives behind some of the demolished area are disgusting. All those adorable houses on Monroe were ripped away so the new palm-lined drive from I-95 to the football stadium would be more impressive. What is this ? Mesopotamia? But the real reason was racist to the core. Wayne, thank you for pulling us along on this almost unrequited quest to save what's left of the Grandmother buildings... the elders of architecture. And thank you, Sherry, for tickling our quick, stirring the pot, revving our engines. And thanks to my fellow responders below. I can count on them to rev my own engine....
"No White Smoke" - very cogent!
Perhaps if the DIA/City had not spoiled almost every entity proposing to do business in Jacksonville with the promise of "attractive incentives" then maybe those entities wouldn't be prone to keeping their hand out. Witness the comment by Council Person Ken Amaro; "If we start here, we might as well do it for every other developer who comes along". What Mr. Amaro doesn't seem to realize is that the precedent for "handouts" was set many moons ago - and those "gifts" have been getting bigger and bigger through the years. It's as if we have to continually pay out (and plead) for our dance card to have any takers.
Maybe Mr. Atkins is a little deluded in thinking he can just keep asking for more - hopefully not. But at this point the clock-is-ticking aspect of having to have an agreement signed this month might be a bridge too far.
Additionally, earlier last year, after seeing the buildings left without any window coverings, I knew that it wouldn't be long for the threat of demolition to rear its ugly head. When a building is left prey to the elements, it's life and structural integrity rapidly declines - and the Trio is probably past hospice and now on life-support (?). I truly hope not.
I think Mr. Carlucci's label of "emergency" remains apt. I also think Mr. Carlucci should find another appellation other than "damn horribles" lest the nay-sayers agree that those "horribles" win out.
Thank you very much - Long Live the Trio
Council sent it back to DIA to negotiate and ‘get to yes’. Boyer has some tough instructions there given that she and DIA first punted the deal to Council, then subsequently weighed in on the deal as reckless and expressed a lack of confidence in the developer. Council can hold her and DIA responsible for getting to yes; could Boyer’s role as CEO be on the line if she and DIA fail to succeed in their marching instructions? Then it’s up to us as citizens to hold council responsible getting to yes. This project offers tremendous civic and economic benefits.
The stadium, not so much...a billion seems a lot to pay for a structure and surrounding venue that will only be used what, a dozen times a year, for its intended purpose? And whose costs we the taxpayers will bear while Mr Khan reaps the vast majority of the economic benefits.
It's interesting that the DIA punted to Council earlier and now wants to say "Never mind, we want it back." It's always easier with government - especially in this city - to say "No" rather than find a solution.
“Get to yes.”
I emailed the at-large councilmen about the Laura Street Trio but they did not respond. Councilman Boylan *did* respond. Perhaps we need to find someone else to take on the project, as if there *is* anyone else to take on the project. His response has an inordinate delay in putting the project in motion baked into it. The city bought the trio from an investor who threatened to demolish the trio in the late '90s. And then did nothing with it. Here we are a quarter-century later, back again with threats to demolish the buildings. Once again, the city kicks the can down the street.