My personal favorites are the “ x San Marco generation” folks who of course know what is best for all of us. Take us back to the magical days of San Marco when the Square was crap or maybe back to when the help used the toilet in the garage. Those were the days.
I really hope these "Right Size San Marco" dummies get their initiative steamrolled. San Marco deserves some nice amenities. People complaining about having an apartment built next door is so dumb and counter-productive
Some of these posts sound rather mean spirited and less than respectful or civil to others who are guilty of no more than having a differing view of how their environment should be managed.
These citizens have every right to stand up for their property rights and quality of life by confronting others who are doing the same for their own account. Who really is the legitimate arbiter of what is best for a neighborhood? In the end, it is usually best when the parties work together to find a mutually agreeable solution, not when one crams down on the other. (As an aside, developers don't have a monopoly on all the great ideas so, just maybe, a creative solution is derived from this process that exceeds the intended value of the initial proposal and everyone is better off.)
If the development is down sized, then the developer needs to pay less for the land and the church needs to get less, just like any buyer/seller deal based on ROI. It doesn't appear that the issue is over current zoning but rather an up zoning which only serves to generate "new found" returns, not ones anyone should expect based on the present situation. If that comes at the expense of lower values for others, is that really fair?
If the developers/church think that the surrounding home values will not be impacted, maybe they should offer to buy them at their current market value and then resell them after their development is completed i.e. put their money where there mouth is.
To be clear, I have no skin in this game but I have been in contests with developers who are in a never ending quest to extract ever more value from their deals, regardless of the consequences to neighborhood character, environment and/or historical preservation. That's their job and they accept the risk/reward ratio and/or high stakes game they are playing when they decide to move forward. There is no guarantee they will prevail nor is there an obligation by others to kowtow to their plans just because they demand it to make their "numbers work."
Unfortunately, Jacksonville citizens have, more than not, been asleep at the wheel over the decades in standing up for their communities as developers have generally had City Hall in their pocket. I actually find it refreshing to see neighborhood groups showing passion and spunk and working hard to insure smart development, not just development for the sake of it.
Regardless of ones position, I believe it is a healthy sign for Jacksonville that its citizens really do care and love their neighborhoods as that is what will ultimately result in the most sustainable community.
