Recent Posts

Since it was mentioned, what's really up with Van Winkel anyway? That eyesore is clearly included in this plan, but it seems nobody has actually gotten his consent? Geez..

So people honestly believe he's just going to let COJ take it from him without so much as talking to a lawyer? I'm not trying to start WWIII here, but I think Stephen's got a point. That just seems unlikely to say the least. COJ may be able to get away with the demolition, citing safety reasons, but that's just the beginning since the property itself clearly has some commercial value aside from the structure.

Van Winckel will probably get a building inspector who disagrees with COJ's building inspector regarding the necessity of the demo, and they'll each hire appraisers who disagree with each other on the land's value, and they'll each hire environmental engineers who disagree with each other, etc., etc. These things drag on forever, they'll probably be fighting over it for ages. In the end COJ may wind up having to pay him at least something for his land, which may be worth more than it cost to demo the building, or at least that's what Van Winckel will argue.

And Hionides is another one. If COJ wants that, they're probably going to have to pay for it. I would hope that before anyone spends any more time and money making plans that involve privately owned properties, COJ reaches some agreement with the owners.

But even so, I believe the Park View is the only real eyesore. The other buildings are historic themselves, and would make great lofts or offices. Why destroy even more density? I don't get it. Shouldn't those be excluded?

Last words seem to be important to you, fsu813.

Most of your input on springfield has to do with the people you don't want in the neighborhood,  and the businesses you don't think should open.  The rest of it has to do with 'supporting' the demolition crew at SPAR and making comments about my character.  Making statements like '

Van Winkel is on very shakey ground with the city and probably won't get his property back, last I heard. As far as the other private property goes, i'm assuming that the city feels it won't be too much of an issue.

dont 'address' the issues.  It merely makes you feel like youve made a response.  No matter how divorced from reality or stupid the statement itself might have been.

Where to begin with the number of outright fabrications in that statement?

Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?

What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?

You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?

In two short sentences you managed to make at least ten false statements.  And this is your idea of 'answering the issues?'

well.  ok.

Not very broad in your interests, you have to admit.

But I agree, lets do get on with something a little more interesting. 

Is there a next meeting?

Corrections & observation:

- Perhaps you should start a thread to list all the various "lies" i've told. You have my permission. I'm obviously pathological.

- Of course I didn't pass judgement on Ms. Farley?

- I speak before I know what i'm talking about? (ha) That's rich. When I am wrong about something I readily admit it. (ie, the lock system possibility). You, on the other hand, produce long-winded rants about how awful the rough draft, making all kinds of illinformed assumptions, without attending 1 meeting. Heck, I corrected half of your assertions a couple pages back already, which you've yet to acknowledge.

- I'm ok with you personally attacking me. It's so ridiculous i'm interested in what you'll come up with next.

Back to the subject....

When is the next meeting about this?

Great points dan.  I take it you are manning the concessions of the proactive and positivity bandwagon?

Well said Chris.

The people involved are passionate and sincerely want to do whats right. Whats needed is proactive and positive input and interaction, not darts and daggers.

Fsu813.

I am hardly the "founder of SHARP", nor did I send you any emails.

I will be one of the charter members however.  the organization supports things that I and many other people in the neighborhood believe in.

This type of lying that you constantly do on these forums is why I try as best as I can not to have any conversations with you.

Unlike you, when I agree with someone, I am not 'sweet talking' them.  This is something that would only occur to someone as inexperienced and basically calculating as you are.  In any case, you are certainly in no position to be able to pass judgement on either Chris Farley or myself.

Time after time, it has been demonstrated on this forum that you speak before you know what you are talking about, so I will not dignify the rest of your post with a response.

If you want constructive help on this project, then perhaps your betters should step in and prevent you from making the issue such a mass of personal attacks that it poisons the ground water?

Even though the plan is preliminary, the vision for the plan ought to be in place.  For example, will the balustrades be removed to have a natural creek?  

The decision to save the canal or return it to a natural creek -- has this been decided?

From what I understood, there will be parts that are retruned to a more natural state (ie, bioremediation, natural buffer zone for flooding) and parts that are not. The ballustrades would be moved further out in places to accomdate the new design. Again, from what I understood.

Do we know if SPAR is working toward preserving the canal and its balustrades?

I do not know. I would assume they want to preserve as much historical elements as possible. You could call and ask them.

SheClown.

Zoo and FSU813 are advocates of the plan, so its safe to say that SPAR is for destroying the balustrades. After all, they are historic.

Chris Farley is the one making the most sense on the entire issue, and has presented cogent, logical points about the actual issues, and is being roundly ignored by the little coterie of omniscient ophidians---or worse: patiently explained to.

Obviously SHARP is for saving them.

But really, I think the whole plan needs scrapped.  The negatives so outweigh the positives.

Whats so funny is that the input of this group was sought and given prior to all the meetings and was online and available throughout.

Both the Shands and the FCCJ master plans were also available and online throughout and were disregarded completely.

The environmental information, obviously available and presented in person by Chris Farley, was disregarded.

Who was involved in this process?  proton experts and lawn maintenance people?

- Remember the part, a page or 2 back, when I informed you that many of your concerns had already been brought up and addressed in the various public meetings that you chose not to attend?

How someone can demosntrate that they have almost no clue about the project, but then find different ways to bash it repeatedly is quite puzzling. Wait, no it's not. SPAR had a role in making it happen, so you don't like it. You have literally no idea what information was looked at and disregarded, and what was not. Where i'm from, this is called talking out of your _ _ _.

- Ms. Farley can spot a sweet talker when she sees one. Her reputation and credibility won't rub off on you, no matter how hard you try to align yourself with her.

- Since you brought it up: Can you tell us a little more about this SHARP group that you founded? The last SHARP thread was deleted when various people became critical of thier (your) inappropriate email responses to them and posted them. Suddenly *poof*, gone.

- i support saving and restoring the orginal ballustrades as well, fyi. There's a way to go about it. Making wild guesses, incorrect assumptions, and promoting false information are not the best way to support saving the original ballustrades. Showing up the the various meetings , in person, is much more effective. See you at the next one?

  I would imagine there will be an opportunity to donate at Lisa's gathering at the Women's Club tomorrow afternoon?

It will be informal, some cake, some cookies, some coffee, exchange of stories and words of comfort for Phil.  A chance to remember Lisa, together.

Bumper sticker:  Florida's First Coast-where Miami begins!!

There was a plastics company upstream that contributed to the benzene contamination of the parklands, Chris.

Also, you should be able to ask the reagans about the money.  Harry served on the council with Sandra and would know how and where to locate that information.

The gassification plant was not really the polluter that it has been painted to be in the community.  It was only operational for a couple of decades---and potentially only 12 years--- and has not been used as a gassification plant for nearly a century.

Please do not tell people what they can or cannot discuss on these threads.  If you can correct a misperception, that is just as valuable a service as announcing new information.

The parking lot is a travesty indeed, and the methods for infilling the land were even worse.

Also I think if you do some checking, you will find that the hogans creek park system was actually even larger than merely 40 acres.

Great information though, and thanks for clarifying that the written information you were referring was in fact your own written notes that you physically took to the meeting, and not the written suggestions on these forums solicited for consideration.