TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AND ALL CITY COUNSEL MEMBERS



Please do not approve the proposed cruise ship seaport in Mayport Village. It is against the law. Please read this carefully so you can understand why approving these ordinances would lead you to break the law. The reasons for this request are as follows:



On 1997 the State of Florida designated Mayport Village as one of its first three wa terfront communities through the Waterfronts Florida program. There are now 27 such Waterfront Florida communities in the State recognized by the Department of Community affairs. Also in 1997, the Cities of Jacksonville and Atlantic Beach passed resolutions forming the Mayport Waterfront Partnership to oversee the redevelopment of Mayport Village and the surrounding area. That advisory body is also recognized by the Department of Community Affairs as the local authority overseeing the revitalization of the Waterfront. The designation of Mayport Village also allowed the City to receive grants from the program for planning of Mayport Village’s redevelopment.



The grants the City received enabled the Waterfront Partnership to proceed with Mayport’s visioning and revitalization plans which was done with the cooperation of the local Mayport Village community. The visioning and planning work then moved the Waterfront Partnership to sponsor Ordinance 2001-910; the “Ma yport Village Overlay Zone” before City Council. When approved City Council stated the fishing community of Mayport Village was unique and invaluable resource to the City and its citizens and should be preserved for future generations. The ordinance zoning language allows for cruise ships and its terminals. The purpose of this was to protect the small gambling boat operating from the Village at that time even though many Villagers no not want them there. The gambling boat owners called their operation a cruise ship. However, please don’t make the mistake in believing the JaxPort cruise ship is the same use. It is not. It falls under a different land use category. Large cruise ships fall under the category of vessels berthing in a seaport. Therefore, that is why JaxPort seeks to change the land use category and zoning district.



In 2006, the Waterfront Partnership again sponsored legislation to reaffirm the zoning in Mayport Village, Ordinance 2006-452, cal ling it the “Mayport Working Waterfront Zoning Districts”. By passage of this ordinance, the City Council of Jacksonville recognizes all of Mayport Village is a “Working Waterfront”.



Passage of Ordinance 2001-910 and Ordinance 2006-452 along with the Mayport Village Redevelopment Plan (Mayport Design Guides) live within the existing. 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Waterfront Partnership and City Council did not at all have to change it.



In 2005 and amended in 2006 the State of Florida Legislature passed a bill for the preservation of recreation and working waterfronts. Section 342.07 of the Florida State Statutes defines recreational and working waterfront and explicitly states “Seaport” and not permitted in a working waterfront. This bill also states that coastal communities with recreational and working waterfronts must add language into their Comprehensive Plan for the protection of them. The City has yet to comply with thi s State law.



In 2007, the City made some attempted to comply with the law in Ordinance 2007-458. However, that bill was withdrawn. The definition of recreation and working waterfronts in the proposed ordinance had also not mentioned seaports are not permitted in working waterfronts. It should have included that language in the definition. When State Legislature passes laws requiring communities to enact, the community can further restrict those laws (unless the law does not allow it). However, the community cannot relax those laws. Allowing a seaport in a working waterfront when the state definition states seaports are excluded relaxes that law.



Also in 2007 the City turned over operation of the ferry with its properties to JaxPort. With that transfer of property City Council tuned over properties to JaxPort that had nothing to do with the ferry operation. Many of these properties are within the residential portion of the Village. Some were us ed for other purposes such as drainage, water supply, and sanitary sewer. That was wrong. The sanitary sewer and water well properties should have been turned over to JEA and the drainage ditch properties should have gone to Public Works. Retaining ownership of these properties proves JaxPort plans to expand the cruise ship seaport through the entire Mayport Village thereby eliminating what little is left of the entire fishing village.



After JaxPort officially made an announcement to place the cruise ship terminal in Mayport Village the Mayport Waterfront Partnership looked into the proposal. After consideration and investigation the Partnership made a recommendation to JaxPort, the Mayor, and City Council to not relocate the cruise ship terminal in Mayport Village. Powers in the City retaliated by withdrawing staff support to the Partnership and closing the office in the hopes to derail this City Agency. However, the Partnership still operates by volunteers but does not have the support as the Arlington CPAC which also made recommendations to the City opposing the cruise ship relocation.



As in other cases that come before City Council it is this. Somebody wants to make money at the expense of others and in this case a tiny working waterfront community.



A rich man with his investors who are also very politically connected bought property in Mayport Village. At the time he thought he could make a lot of money by redeveloping the property into commercial space and condominiums (or maybe he had a cruise ship in mind). The housing market goes sour so he had his political friend in Atlantic Beach contact his political friends in Jacksonville and JaxPort to set up strategy meetings to change the Comprehensive Plan, change the land use and zoning districts to allow the cruise ship in the Village. The rich man and his investors are now happy because they got all his money back even though prices have dropped. Th ey are also successful in convincing a certain few politicians this is good for the Village and its real “Win Win” deal. However, the Villagers somehow feel betrayed. Many of the more recent Village residents moved into the Village on a promise of a redeveloped fishing village and like the idea of living in a fishing village. They didn’t want to move in a cruise ship village.



The Planning Commission and the LUZ Committee of City Council acting on 2008-879 (Pine Island) recomended denial of the application to go to WD-WR before it was withdrawn. Why? Was it because the people who live on Heckscher Drive didn’t want it? Those citizens are a lot further away from Pine Island than the residents of Mayport Village who live practically live on top of the proposed cruise ship terminal. We also hear rumors the applicant was asked to withdraw the application until the Mayport issue was taken care of. Then the application can be resubmitted for the WD-WR land use amen dment again.



Therefore, we who oppose the relocation of the cruise ship seaport in Mayport Village expect you to not break the law but to deny Ordinances 2008-892, 893, and 970 and instead follow the established plan to preserve the City’s heritage of Mayport Village’s fishing community. There are other alternatives than to violate Florida State Statutes. You can put the cruise ship seaport on a portion of Pine Island (the owner is willing to sell) or relocate the seaport to Buck Island where it is already properly zoned for such use. Land use amendments and/or zone changes are not required.



Sincerely,

your name