JaxPoliticsOnline.com

Observations and musings on Jacksonville Politics

VA Lawmakers Launch Plan To Keep Aircraft Carrier in Mayport

From the PilotOnline.com:

Some Hampton Roads congressmen are trying to broker a settlement in their long-simmering feud with the Florida congressional delegation over Navy plans to shift a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Mayport Naval Station in Florida.

In private discussions with their Sunshine State counterparts and during a House hearing this week, Republican Reps. Rob Wittman of Westmoreland County and Randy Forbes of Chesapeake have been urging a new look at an alternative plan to shift other, smaller ships and aircraft to Mayport in lieu of a carrier.

“I can’t tell you there’s an effort to negotiate,” Forbes cautioned. But the two delegations “are not enemies,” he said. “We talk quite a bit about this situation and will continue to.”

Filed under: Florida, Florida Politics, Jacksonville, , , , , , ,

Come View A Film About Mayport

From Public Trust Law:

Up for fresh Mayport shrimp and a compelling short film about the Mayport controversy?

Thursday, February 12, at 7 pm at the Atlantic Theatre in Atlantic Beach (just east of Publix on Atlantic Blvd.) will premier a documentary film about Jacksonville’s Mayport Village and the controversy surrounding the possible cruise ship terminal that could be built in the village. The Jacksonville City Council is expected to approve the terminal on February 9. Sponsored by the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute, two local filmmakers, Josh Hansbrough and Justin Anderson, have created a powerful 15-minute film addressing the controversy.

mayport

The event includes a party celebrating the value of Mayport Village. Fresh Mayport shrimp will be served as part of the $7 admission donation to the Mayport cause and legal case. Wine may be purchased at the Theatre. Live music will be provided by Jacksonville songwriter Katie Grace Helow. Following the film will be a short question-and-answer period, then socializing until the shrimp is gone — the event concludes at 9 pm.

Filed under: Jacksonville, , , , , ,

Mayport: So much for proceeding slowly

After holding an all day workshop on the Mayport Cruise Terminal, the Jaxport Board of Directors voted to proceed slowly in pursuing building a cruise terminal at Mayport.  

Evidently City Council didn’t get the word. 

In a surprise to the folks involved in fighting against the cruise terminal, the rezoning legislation that would allow a cruise terminal at Mayport was scheduled for Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee on February 3rd – where it was approved unanimously.

February 4, 2009

Dear Councilman Fussell:

I am an attorney and represent the Mayport Civic Association and other individuals in Mayport.  I am President of the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute.

Despite your repeated assurances that the City Council would not vote on the Mayport cruise terminal PRIOR to the JPA’s own board approving plans to develop a cruise terminal in Mayport, we now learn that you have changed your position and are pushing the land use and zoning matters very quickly — to be held next Tuesday.  I attended the day long JPA workshop last week.  JPA director Ferrin told everyone that pursuing the cruise terminal in Mayport would be a “slow, deliberate process.”  The credibility of your assurances and Mr. Ferrin’s promises now are certainly in question in the minds of many citizens. 

JPA Chairman Mason was quoted last week as saying it made sense for the City Council to hold off on the Mayport matter until the Port Authority made its own decision. There is no way that anyone could lawfully tell you that the JPA Board is going to approve a cruise terminal in Mayport — I honestly believe the JPA Board will ultimately decide against a terminal there. 

We are presently organizing a large number of citizens to attend the council meeting Tuesday night to express their opinions about your change of position, and about the Mayport cruise terminal in general.

I would like to talk to you about this matter as soon as possible.  Could you or your assistant call me on my cell phone — [...]?

Warren K. Anderson, Jr.

And here’s another one sent to Council President Fussell on February 5th questioning the legislation and wondering how the legislation got on the agenda in the first place:

RE: Rezoning 2008-893 and FLUM 08-892- Port proposed cruise ship terminal related bills
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
As to FLUM amendment 08-892 up for a Council vote next Tuesday to accommodate a Cruise Ship terminal for Mayport Village, I have been concerned that the FLUM amendment acreage for a proposed cruise terminal is a much smaller land area than the acreage the Port itself previously indicated would be needed for such a use. 
 
I have had concerns that the small amendment process may be preferred by the applicant just to avoid the scrutiny of reviewing agencies but that it will be followed by additional amendment application(s) rather than full disclosure up front now of the full impacts to the land use map. 
 
To take it a step further, it appears to me that the proposal may best be studied as a DRI and companion amendment and rezoning to address the regional impacts.  I wonder if that has been addressed? Who made the decision the cruise ship terminal proposal is not a DRI?
 
I was at the LUZ Committee meeting Tuesday, without an agenda in hand, having reviewed it before my arrival, and something confused me:
 
Did the LUZ Committee informally add to the agenda Tuesday an item on the port related Mayport cruise terminal proposal?  At what point was that decided in advance to take it up for a vote Tuesday and how was the port group (advocates) advised to know to be present when the public and opponents did not know it was to be up for a vote?
 
All of the recent news coverage had suggested a hold pattern as to the Port Authority Board’s position on whether or not to even move forward with a cruise terminal…. If the board asked to wait, who decided to move it forward?
 
Are the port staff and port attorneys still moving forward without the support of their board?
 
As far as I knew, there was no port cruise ship related bill scheduled to be heard at LUZ by continuation of hearing or hearing set to a date certain of Tuesday, February 3 as to Mayport Village? What action was taken when by whom to get that item before the LUZ committee on Tuesday?
 
There were no members of the Mayport community or the past vocal opposition present or members of the CPAC 2 in which Mayport is located present or members of the Mayport community present at the LUZ meeting on Tuesday. 
 
Also, has CPAC of PD 2/CD 11 taken a position? The agenda did not reflect any PD 2 CPAC position which CPAC district is the one that serves the actual location of the port-proposed cruise ship terminal for Mayport Village.
 
However, much to my surprise, there appeared to be a bill heard on the Mayport cruise zoning issue with a large contingency of Port officials and Port attorneys and advocates for the port’s cruise ship effort present at the meeting —suggesting they were informed in advance that an item related to the port cruise ship matter would be heard, even though the public apparently was not so notified and it was not set on the agenda as an item to be heard on Feb. 3?
 
Since the advanced agenda gave no suggestion the port item would be up and since no opposition was present in the audience and yet a large contingency of paid port folks were there, I am just wondering how notification went out to the port staff and attorneys but not to the general public or opponents that it would be added to items on the agenda Tuesday for a vote?
 
Even though there was well known opposition to the cruise terminal, were only the paid advocates FOR the cruise terminal notified the LUZ committee would be taking action on the item Tuesday, without any general public notice or notice to the opposition of record?
 
Also, the agenda appears to show on the rezoning that the land use amendment is a small scale amendment.  Was a decision made that it did not need to be a semi annual amendment?  Again, I was wondering why a proposal to newly locate a cruise terminal at the Mayport village where one was not previously contemplated in long range planning would not be required to go through the DRI process? It looks like a potential DRI to me–especially with the naval base affected as well as regional transportation and environmental facilities!
 
Please file this comment for Council review.
 
 The bills are up for hearing this Tuesday night. 

 
Thank you, Valerie Britt 

Well here’s how it happened (at least a brief summary of it) taken from the minutes of the Land Use and Zoning Committee’s agenda meeting:

08-893 Discussion was held concerning various options, including deferral; it was stated that JPA was ready to move forward, but did not object to a deferral, and that a new amendment is to be proposed to incorporate additional conditions; the Chair indicated the intent to entertain action to amend and move the item, with previous speakers to be contacted concerning the public hearing before the full City Council

Note the agenda meeting is held at 3:30pm the same day as the Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting – which is held later that same day at 5:00pm.

Funny how it appears that all the Jaxport people knew to be at the Commitee meeting, but none of the opponents did.

Filed under: Jacksonville, Jacksonville City Council, , ,

Jaxport Board to discuss Mayport Cruise Terminal

This is just a reminder that Jaxport’s board is scheduled to meet on Monday, January 26th, beginning at 9am at the Jaxport Cruise Terminal to discuss building a new cruise terminal at Mayport.

The board workshop will examine various scenarios for the costs and benefit of the cruise terminal. The worst case would be if the port builds the terminal and cruise ships subsequently stop using Jacksonville, leaving the port with no leasing revenue to pay off the construction debt.

Although Jaxport has already purchased the land for the terminal at Mayport, the board has yet to approve funding for the project.  Given these tight economic times, I guess there may be a possibility that the Board could balk at building the terminal.

Filed under: Jacksonville, ,

Is Mayport Home to an Ancient Spanish Burial Site

As the Jacksonville Port Authority weighs the decision of whether or not to spend $60 million to build a cruise terminal in Mayport, Mayport residents have raised the spectre of disturbing a cemetery that holds the remains of Spanish soldiers.

SPANISH CEMETERY – CONTINUATION
by Joseph Picket, Station Librarian

In a recent article ( The Mirror, 27 October 1989 ), I presented evidence for the existence of a Spanish cemetery in Mayport; the origin of which dates back to April 1568. At that time, a garrison of Spanish soldiers lost their lives defending a small fort (in the area of what is now Broad Street) against an overwhelming force of French soldiers and Timucuan Indians. The remains of the defenders were buried near the fort by a relief party sent from St. Augustine by the acting Governor, General Esteban de las Alas. Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Jacksonville, , , ,

New twist for the Mayport Cruise Terminal

The City Council’s Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee was set to consider and vote on the legislation that must be approved in order for a cruise terminal to be located in Mayport.  In a strange twist, LUZ heard from the public at its meeting earlier this evening, but did not take a vote on any of the bills.  According to FCN, Jaxport’s board will hold a workshop on January 26 to discuss plans for Mayport.  So mark your calendars and show up, if you’re interested in this issue.

Filed under: Jacksonville, Jacksonville City Council, , , , , , ,

Mayport cruise terminal deal falls through

Citing Jaxport’s failure to address shoreside power and the village’s shrimping and fishing industry concerns, the Mayport Civic Association rejected Jaxport’s latest proposed offer that sought to allay Mayport resident’s concerns about locating a cruise terminal in the village.  The City Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee meets tomorrow and is currently scheduled to hear the legislation (3 separate bills) that would pave the way for the cruise terminal.  Read more about it here.

Filed under: Jacksonville, Jacksonville City Council, , , ,

Folio Weekly on Mayport

Folio Weekly has posted their editorial on JaxPort’s proposal to move the cruise terminal to Mayport.  (For what it’s worth, we wish Folio would post more of their material online—it’s much easier than trying to re-type it and properly credit it on our own.)  

 

We don’t often look to public relations flacks for  straight answers. But occasionally, despite their training and obligations, they let fly with a nugget of truth.

Such is the case with a December 2004 statement by then-JaxPort Authority spokesperson Robert Peek. When asked by The Florida Times-Union about the viability of a cruise ship terminal at Mayport, he responded, “Our analysis shows there is no room at Mayport.” Peek added, “We would need 40 acres of property along the river. There is not 40 acres of undeveloped land at Mayport. We would have to buy homes and businesses.” Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Historical Mayport

We discusssed Mayport’s historical significance the other day, but I thought I’d share this screen capture from a map that was passed to me. This is from the City’s own marketing materials, and the map is from the US Department of the Interior, dated April 2, 1934. It’s hard to read, but notice the designation of Mayport as “Site of Spanish Fort 1568.”
picture-11

It’s also interesting to read up on where the Timucuan Indians actually lived. There’s a lot of history here in northeast Florida.

Filed under: Jacksonville, , , , , ,

Save Mayport Village teams up with Public Trust

The announcement.

the Public Trust, on behalf of the Mayport Civic Association and several Mayport residents, has entered into negotiations with Jaxport. After receiving an initial proposal from Jaxport, the Public Trust consulted with the concerned parties to draft some additional protective measures. These measures were added to the initial proposal and sent back to Jaxport through a mediator. The Public Trust is currently awaiting a reply. The Public Trust believes that the new proposal sufficiently addresses the environmental concerns presented above as well as other related concerns of the citizens of Mayport. It is therefore the hope of the Public Trust that Jaxport will agree to the proposal and thus form a working partnership, one that satisfies all parties involved and truly benefits the City of Jacksonville.

Filed under: Jacksonville, , , , ,

Blog Stats

  • 176,003 Visitors This Year
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.