Gifts from God and Payne Park - It has been suggested I write about the decision to move the Gifts from God "Sunday Picnic in the Park" from Gillespie Park. I don't think I need to detail the issues the Gillespie Park neighborhood has been raising for a number of years, so I will talk about my thought process.
For background, the city ordinance that governs the issuance of permits for gatherings greater than 75 people in city parks has provisions as follows:
A special event permit may only be issued for a specified limited period of time and shall set forth conditions or requirements as shall be deemed necessary to mitigate potential adverse effects upon the public park and neighboring properties…
Our ordinance also specifies that:
An application for special event permit may also be denied on any of the following grounds:….
…..(8) There are alternate locations available, within the public park, or at another public park, where the event may reasonably be located without creating the type or degree of potentially adverse effects it is anticipated would result at a site for which the special event permit is requested;
Said very simply, having been granted the authority under the ordinance to do so, I determined that the Payne Park site offered an opportunity to mitigate neighborhood impacts based on the significant buffer areas that exist there that do not exist around Gillespie Park.
We will continue to monitor the situationto ensure that this conclusion is indeed valid, and hope to hear from the neighbors if there are conflicts. All in all, I continue to believe this is a better solution for conducting this legal activity.
For background, the city ordinance that governs the issuance of permits for gatherings greater than 75 people in city parks has provisions as follows:
A special event permit may only be issued for a specified limited period of time and shall set forth conditions or requirements as shall be deemed necessary to mitigate potential adverse effects upon the public park and neighboring properties…
Our ordinance also specifies that:
An application for special event permit may also be denied on any of the following grounds:….
…..(8) There are alternate locations available, within the public park, or at another public park, where the event may reasonably be located without creating the type or degree of potentially adverse effects it is anticipated would result at a site for which the special event permit is requested;
Said very simply, having been granted the authority under the ordinance to do so, I determined that the Payne Park site offered an opportunity to mitigate neighborhood impacts based on the significant buffer areas that exist there that do not exist around Gillespie Park.
We will continue to monitor the situationto ensure that this conclusion is indeed valid, and hope to hear from the neighbors if there are conflicts. All in all, I continue to believe this is a better solution for conducting this legal activity.
posted by Michael McNees at 9:24 AM
36 Comments:
Mike:I first want to thank you for informing me immediately of your decision to switch from Gillespie to Payne Park. Not only was it a courteous gesture, but a politic one as well. We in the Alta Vista neighborhood – which encompasses Payne Park – are concerned about homeless incursions in our area. During the winter months, the Seaboard Coast Line RR right-of-way has featured “camps” from Shade Avenue down to the Fairgrounds property. Almost a homeless convention, at times.
As I mentioned on the phone, I’m happy to see you providing relief for the Gillespie Park residents from their weekly onslaught. We can pick up the burden for awhile.The new location, behind the Police Station and adjacent to the tennis courts, should provide sufficient buffering for my ‘hood. But if we experience problems, I’ll be the first to let you know.
Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, soothing the hurt and bringing hope to the hopeless are acts worthy not only of respect but help. We in Alta Vista will share in this effort as best we can. I might add, however, a bit of consultation before your decision would have been even nicer than a simple statement-of-fact. S/Stan Zimmerman
Stan - Thanks for your comments and public-spirited attitude, and point taken on your last comment. For what it's worth a decision had to be made on their permit application, and if it was to be denied I wanted to be sure G.f.G. had that information before last weekend came so they could could notify their people of the move the following week, so time was short.
In the spirit of total disclosure I will also say this; I understood that I could have conferred with a number of affected and interested parties before making this decision. Having heard many hours of public discussion on the issue in the past, I had at least a good idea of how that would go, for example had I spoken to Gifts from God I probably would have learned that they absolutely did not want to leave Gillespie Park, which has long been their position. What I finally concluded was that the only way this change, which I believe is better for everyone, was going to be accomplished was for me to make a unilateral decision and make it happen, something the city ordinance gave me the authority to do. So to you and others who would have appreciated more consultation in advance, I can only say that I appreciate and understand the value in that, but felt like the direction I took was the only one that would get us where we are.
I do not appreciate Mr. Zimmerman's comments about the way this issue was handled. The Gillespie Park people have struggled with the GFG traffic for over 7 years. I think it was appropriate for the City Manager to consider a move to a more remote park that has little impact on a surrounding neighborhood. I live in Laurel Park and we are just as effected as any other surrounding neighborhood but do not feel the City should have to contact us to make decisions. Are you micro managing the issues everyone complains about the City Commission doing? There are over a million issues at stake every day with our city and at some point we have to say thank you for doing a fine job and stop feeling like our hands have to be held or our backs pat.
I like the idea someone suggested in the last post about parks, where the city could move the GFG every few years and share the burden among many neighborhoods.
What great news!! Thank you!!
Stan Zimmerman almost complains about the decision made by the City Manager to move the Gifts from God with an underhand acdeptance. It is not really in a neighborhood. There are few houses surrounding the location so what is up with the attitude? In Gillespie it was right next to homes, that is something to complain about after several years.
Praise God someone saw the Light!! I however I do not feel that it is LEGAL to have these feedings on public land, period. I know for a fact it is not allowed in other Cities in Florida. There are multiple health issues associated with this activity. Freedom of speech is a right that is protected by the Constitution. But there are laws governing food preparation, distribution and the ability to relieve oneself after consuming the food. I don't think it would be allowed for a restaurant that seats 50 people to open without restrooms or to open on public property. Mike, Thank you for finally having the guts to do something about this nonsense. It has been clear to me and many others, everyone has been so afraid of being accused of "going against God" that we have allowed this group of people to conduct their illegal activity by using intimidation. The pendulum is beginning to swing back! Hooray!!!!!!
If everyone has not got the word around Gillespie Park about the Gifts of God, then the Gillespie neighborhood associations (and there are two) should get the word out. As for the homeless not getting the word, that should be the responsibility of the Gift of God or they should not be allowed to move to another location unless they take steps to let them know. Maybe they need to post volunteers in Gillespie for a few weekends to notify those homeless that show up uninformed. Accountability starts with the neighborhoods and thank God we have a city that took steps to find alternatives for the people of Gillespie who endured the longest run of this help to the homeless without a say.
If everyone has not got the word around Gillespie Park about the Gifts of God, then the Gillespie neighborhood associations (and there are two) should get the word out. As for the homeless not getting the word, that should be the responsibility of the Gift of God or they should not be allowed to move to another location unless they take steps to let them know. Maybe they need to post volunteers in Gillespie for a few weekends to notify those homeless that show up uninformed. Accountability starts with the neighborhoods and thank God we have a city that took steps to find alternatives for the people of Gillespie who endured the longest run of this help to the homeless without a say.
If everyone has not got the word around Gillespie Park about the Gifts of God, then the Gillespie neighborhood associations (and there are two) should get the word out. As for the homeless not getting the word, that should be the responsibility of the Gift of God or they should not be allowed to move to another location unless they take steps to let them know. Maybe they need to post volunteers in Gillespie for a few weekends to notify those homeless that show up uninformed. Accountability starts with the neighborhoods and thank God we have a city that took steps to find alternatives for the people of Gillespie who endured the longest run of this help to the homeless without a say.
Another great read to start my day. Kudos to the neighbors in Gillespie Park for working all weekend to clean up the pavilion and surrounding grounds - it was great to see. As for Gifts for Butterfield, don't think for a minute he has taken the move to Payne Park so graciously. In fact, I was present in the park on his last Sunday, when he told all off his "members" that he had a plan of attack to right the wrongs of City leadership. He said he would have factions feed in all the parks in town, and beat the City at its own game. He said it would be easy to do as long as we didn’t not exceed 75 people at any one location. He made good on his promise, because this past weekend he persuaded another "church" group to take up where he left off, and even had some of his same volunteers present to hand out food and clothing. They nailed signs to the trees, had amplified music, and apparently are more than happy to take over where Butterfield left off. I wonder what will happen next week. Stay tuned to a park near you.
The information on the last post is depressing that someone working under the guise of GOD would not work with the city to find solutions to help the homeless that is acceptable to the ones supporting the help through contributions, taxes and space. I think many should let the Gift of God know how they feel about helping the homeless while not creating a bad situation for the children and people who want a safe environment free of worry.
I see so many groups helping the needy that it is sad this is not appreciated more when just common courtesy laws and protections are trying to be put into place by the city.
What is with the comments from Stan Zimmerman? I personally had a difficult time understanding his position exactly. Is he really as conflicted about the city making a decision as it appears in his half caring/half dictator style. First he thanks the city for informing him immediately of the decision and then at the end jabs the city for not "consulting" with "him or the neighborhood" first. What neighborhood? The area they are moving is not surrounded by houses. In fact the closest house is at least a block away. I would say that is pretty nice. It seems closer to Laurel Park and Towels Court than anything. The city has many issues on the table and as a neighborhood resident in our downtown, we should praise the City Manager for taking a step to figure out some solutions. I hope just because Stan expanded his boundaries of his neighborhood association to include Payne Park that they do not expect to be notified of every move taken for that park. It belong to the entire city, centrally located and hardly affiliated with one particular neighborhood, even if they scoffed it up in their self proclaimed boundaries.
Mr. Zimmerman's apparent colonization of Payne Park might create some big problems for the rest of us down the line - especially based on his suggestion that the City Manager should run all Payne Park uses past him in the future. I hope that the concerts and other large scale events will not be deterred by Stan’s flag planting. As Payne-ful as it may sound to some, the park belongs to all of us.
The comment about the residents cleaning up the pavilion was interesting, because in all the years that Gifts from God used our park, I never once saw them make an effort to leave the place better than they found it. I helped in the clean up, and the building was disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves. I hope they don't abuse the other parks the same way. I thought the rule was "Do" on to others..., not "doo-doo"...
As for the city manager's new-found enlightenment...."a day late and a dollar short".
Why did it take a year or more since the ordinance became effective for him to personally oversee the issuance of permits, especially after all the complaints directed to him and the city commission.
Now the City Commission should move to ban all such regular on-going mondy-making (donations) activities in all City Parks regardless of size.
Dear Last Post: What is wrong with you? Does everything that is good have to be torn apart to find something to complain about. Get a life and start thanking those that do the things they can, when they can.
irresponsible and careless with our city
The last two Posters should bring their buts down to the Commission Chambers if it means that much to them to view the meeting. As far as blaming the Mayor, she has nothing to do with it. You both should apologize for being disrespectful to the Mayor. At least she is willing to serve, unlike many of the more vocal bloviators among us.
Reading these posts is somewhat disheartening.
If there is another award for the meanest city in America (or whatever that thing was about our treatment of the homeless) these comments will surely support our retaining the distinction.
Charles Senf
I would like to say thank you to the City staff and Charter Officials for all the hard hours and time they put into their presentation about the Pineapple Square project. I think you did a great job explaining the complicated issues at stake for the citizens. I do not understand why the Commission felt so pressured to make a decision today instead of trying to negotiate a better deal for us. I do think the project will possibly be a good thing for the city but wish we negotiated more as one of the other posts stated. Aside from that, well done.
For those that do not know, I am in the hospital and the only way I can see what is going on is on TV or by my laptop. I am happy it did come on after some time but still find it terribly irresponsible that it was not aired live the entire time. What about that is disrespectful? Is this not something the Mayor should be accountable for? Or should it be the Auditor and Clerk? The public should be granted access on TV as they always do and with this being such a big deal, it should have happened.
Karen, I think it was that you imply that money was slipped under the table to the commissioners to make this deal.
Do you not wonder? Whole Foods was clearly important to our downtown and the building of condos to bring vitality to our streets. Look at how long the negotiations took. Look at all the imput both publically, by consultants and staff was put into that deal. It was well thought out and took time. The developer of that site constantly gave full disclosure and there was little wiggle room for guessing. The Pineapple Square developer did not give a proposal until recently, after he did a huge PR run through our community, after he knew he had complete bought in, then asked for the world and we just give it to him, without some more negotiations. Look at the few things he gave up at the table, what could have been accomplished if we really negotiated and did not roll over. Does that not make you wonder?
Karen, I happen to know that the City of Sarasota, largely through the efforts of its Clerk, leads the nation in accessiblity of public meetings. We are one of just a handful of cities which broadcasts its major advisory boards and commission meetings live, and replayed, and probably the only City this size to have closed-captioning. The Mayor has absolutely nothing to do with TV scheduling as the City shares the Channel with the County through an Interlocal Agreement signed many years ago. As there was no way she could have known the meeting yesterday would have gone over, then she could not have reserved the time for today's. Let's try to be civil towards one another. You are not suggesting that the City delay the meeting until you personally are available to attend?
Can't we all just get along?
Unfortunately I would have to agree with some of the comments directed to the Mayor and the Pineapple Square issue. Mayor Servian has never wavered one iota regarding her unqulaified support and endorsement for the project- even in the face of what was some serious shortcomings oultined by paid independent consultants delivered at the meetings. It is disheartening for the citizens to see politicians that kow tow as much as she has. We should probably never have to worry on what side of the board she will always default to.
A couple of quick comments, then I think I'm done working for the day. First of all, when the commission meeting spilled over into today, televising the meeting wasn't an option, as I understand it the County Commission met today, and since that's their regular meeting, they are broadcast live. I don't know if we have the ability to broadcast the continued meeting on tape later in the week, but I will find out from the City Clerk's office if that's possible. Thanks to the blogger who pointed out the great job the Clerk's people thru Channel 19 do getting our meetings out there.
Agree or disagree with the decision made today, let's keep it respectful here. For those of you who don't know where that line is, accusing someone of taking a bribe is on the wrong side of it. WAY on the wrong side. I've only deleted one post on this blog so far, but my finger's on that button and it's twitching.... Let's stick to the issues.
Civil. Okay and how do the people that just asked for the city to review this more because all the consultants, staff and appraisers including the City Attorney and City Manager had serious reservations about granting this deal as spelled out by the developer did nothing to really protect us.
I think Mr. Shelin did at least not allow the other commissioners to just grant everything but Ms. Servians attempt to seem like she was making sure "they take care of maintenance" as a strong barganing tool was somewhat silly.
All the small issues the developer gave into were definately planned before hand....come on this is not an attack but a reality looking at the brilliant way they PR'd this project for over a year. One thing the developer can not claim is he is stupid or oh this just came up, we did not think about that.
I commend Ms. Palmer for being the only sensible one to see that this needs to be negotiated more so the city can have a better deal. I was very surprised that Mr. Atkins did not make the same request. What was so awful about that option of slowing down some and negotiating. What is it that got the others to just approve it, as if, the developer had been working for so long in the negotiations. How did all the negative issues about the deal get lost in this and somewhat insulting Ms. Servians speach about "knowing" this deal because she was a banker. I am sorry, that is just not good enough a reason after all the professionals that do this day in and day out are telling you otherwise. The developer just layed out what they wanted a couple of months ago and you would think they had been through the ringer. The developer dragged out everything until they knew they had the votes and that is really sad politics.
And what is it with everyone being bought into "any development is short on parking". Yes, that may be true but the only ones they are hurting are their own tenants. The city did not pay for their parking so it is their loss. But with Pineapple Square we are paying tax dollars to put into their project more parking and since they are lacking what they need in reality, their tenants will be the ones using those spaces not people walking someplace else.
I like the project and hope that it is very successful but the commissioners were too careless with out negotiating this deal harder for us and our tax money.
We elected these commissioners to act as our public stewards. We need to fire them as soon as possible. Don't forget that Mary Anne Servian runs for re-election soon. Danny Bilyeu and Fredd Atkins also have terms ending next year. We citizens need to be looking for someone to replace them who will consider the interests of the citizens. We should also start a recall drive for Ken Shelin. Now there's a guy who promised everything to get elected and now doesn't want the citizens who elected him to tell him what to do. If they don't listen to us, we need to send them a message they will understand.
The problem with our elections is that there is usually only one guy that is semi-normal and the rest are homeless, jobless, and/or brainless. In other words we rarely get a good ballot. We need to figure out a way to attract quality candidates. I say do away with their salaries, or pay them large salaries and make them more full-time.
I am having trouble figuring out which one is normal. Instead of the elected mayor diversion, why don't we engage in a conversation of how to elect city commissioners who recognize their duties to serve as a stewards for the citizens?
I hated to learn today what our commissioners did with the Pineapple Square project. Not that I am against the project but really, they were just careless with giving the developer everything he wanted. Okay so he gave in on some minor small issues, which had to be planned so it would like like they were giving. But the huge amount still remains. They gave away the State Street land for 1 million dollars and then agreed to pay them an addition 7 or 8 million to build 350 public parking spaces in their development - is anyone else a little confused on the math? We know they are low on parking, selling units with just one parking space that even Michael Saunders would say is not sufficient. So, as the consultant stated it will be the users of that project that will use up the 350 spaces the city tax people are paying for and giving up State Street lot for.
I am really not happy with our commissioners decision. At least Commissioner Palmer had some senses and requested more dialogue. Thank you Ms. Palmer!!
As for accountability, how can the commission justify such a quick decision to accept this deal without letting staff negotiate this deal better? Does Mayor Servian really think she "knows" this deal better than the people who work for her. I think this is where the people feel this can not be an up and up deal, it was too rushed by Servian. She supports John Simon too much, acting as though he is right and the consultants are stupid. She should really be ashamed of herself and should revisit this deal and negotiate better terms for us, the taxpayers.
I had another problem with the decision-making. At one point Commissioner Shelin apologized that he had a 12:00 speech to give, so he might be late for the 1:00 pm meeting. Everyone teased him about cutting his speech short and all had a good laugh.__Then the mayor commented that he actually did not have to cut his speech short because the meeting would start with public comment...adding they could summarize the pros and cons for him.__That they did not do. But the comment reflected a feeling about the public that makes us feel disenfranchised and removed from consideration in commissioners' deliberations. Inconsequential as our comments may seem to them, I would think the commissioners would value citizen input.
Interesting comments on another blog
I am not against the Pineapple Square project, but agree with the newspaper editorial this morning, that there were many questions left unanswered. Mr. McNees' comment that "they knew the model car they wanted, but had not yet settled on the price," sent the same message. Also appreciated his (city manager's) defense of planning staff when developer's lawyer called their upcoming presentation a "rebuttal" and he (and later Commissioner Bilyeu) reminded everyone that staff was there to provide information. __Sadly, it did not appear all of that information was considered.__I wish that when casting their votes the commissioners would have spoken about why they disagreed with or did not think important the numbers provided by their consultants. I understand that the mayor has a background in banking, but would have hoped she would have shared with us the insight this provided her into the numbers that were leading many of us to believe the project needed more scrutiny.__Kudos to Commissioner Palmer for having the courage, in a room full of supporters of the project, to continue to wish to pursue issues of concern about the project and to vote against a quick decision.__A special meeting should have been scheduled, with sufficient time to really consider such an important, high-impact project.
Joel,
.....even if it means disregarding others peoples rights?????? Hmmmm!!?? Sounds like something Bush would doo.
Dear Anonymous - People on both sides of the issue have rights, and it's balancing those rights that the whole thing is about.
Post a Comment
<< Home