Gainesville Today - An Introduction

Do you not see that the City Commission is complicit in this result with its continued permitting of these exact student residences around UF?

falsch. wir haben hier keine *hot* springs. *we do have springs*. we need to remove the "hot" part.

What is porters?

Really great and honest introduction. Great job!

An introduction highlighting inequities is such an honest and reflective way to open up a comprehensive plan! So good!

great comparison!

I'd like to offer one overarching comment regarding this first chapter. I believe that we cannot understand the history, present-day, or future of this community without viewing it through the lens of race. I agree that racial equity should be centered in this narrative. I also wonder if, reading it from the perspective of a white, working-class person based in this community, if this document is really written with me in mind. I wonder if, by so strongly centering racial (and specifically Black) inequities throughout this chapter, if other aspects of privilege and inequity are perhaps not being adequately addressed. I see little mention of gender, little mention of class, little specificity as to what is meant by "non-white" (other than Black). I would urge the author/s to consider the perspectives and stories of as wide a variety of Gainesvillians as possible upon further re-readings and revisions of this draft. Thank you for all of your excellent work on this document thus far.

Was the city protecting the nature of our residential community when it allowed a multi-story apartment complex on Seminary Lane? This development is totally out of character of this historic neighborhood. What is being done to insure that this situation does not occur again?

Is there a process by which the city will share the progress of this plan's development. What is the public relations aspect to this plan, it's development, and execution. Thank you, Harry Mangle

On page 4 I am heartened to see an opportunity for developments that exceed what is allowable being referred to the city for review and for the opportunity for the public to weigh in on developments. From the verbiage in this report, I'm not reassured that the measures described would have allowed public input into the Seminary Lane development. City staff interpreted the project to be compliant with code, whereas other experts thought otherwise. How would the new Comp Plan set specific criteria that would trigger public input? Also with Sem Ln, the Comp Plan currently says that new dev must meet the character of the existing neighborhood, which the 5 story student housing clearly does not to any reasonable person. But that requirment was completely bulldozed over by the developer and the city. How could new Comp Plan verbiage be bolstered to ensure city staff could not overlook the fundamental purpose of the Comp Plan with protecting the development compatibility of our neighborhoods? Thank you, Janice Garry

Cedar *Key?

Maybe this is a niche suggestion, but I think it'd be helpful to explicitly link these 8 chapters to the 8 sections required by §163.3177, F.S. That is, if they neatly line up--can't quite tell.

Typically Florida comp plans have Goals, Objectives, and Policies. I'm assuming Outcomes = Goals; Strategies = Objectives; and Indicators = Policies, but it'd be helpful for that to be explicitly stated. Definitely not opposed to using different language, just found it a bit confusing in reading other draft sections!

Is this right? My reading of §163.3191, F.S., indicates that local governments are required to EVALUATE their comp plan every 7 years to determine IF plan amendments are necessary, which means they aren't necessarily required. Maybe I'm reading outdated version of Florida Statutes but wanted to comment just in case!

Is this the most meaningful verb/word here? I don't really understand the specificity of what's trying to be communicated.

"uplifts"

add comma ","

"high-value"

Than*

Can we be more specific with "who you are" -- who you are can be physical characteristics, but also spiritual or otherwise.

Lose the second "their" - redundant.

Potentials* (plural)

The City Commission should proceed with its intent to require that all intermediate and major development plans be submitted for review and approval of the Development Review Board, thereby guaranteeing residents a public hearing in which to voice their concerns. Appeal to the City Commission should also be considered.

One of the City's long-term goals currently established in the Land Development Code is the policy intent of Section 30-1.4 of the Code to “protect the character and maintain the stability of residential” areas, that is, the “protection, enhancement and perpetuation of specific community areas with special character, interest or value representing and reflecting elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, historical and architectural heritage”. The City needs to put teeth into this requirement as it was dismissed as irrelevant in the Seminary Lane case. One way to do that is to require all intermediate and major development plans be submitted for approval of the Development Review Board as recently requested by the City Commission by a narrow margin of 4-3. This would guarantee residents a public hearing. Current rules provide for only staff review by a Technical Review Committee, whose meetings have been held in violation of Florida's Sunshine Law. The Comprehensive Plan should make this requirement explicit and enforceable.