Jacksonville Roost debate not over yet

Conceptual drawing of the controversial Roost restaurant/bar

Attention: Steve Diebenow. More billable hours are headed your way on this Roost issue. But this time, in a different venue.

Despite Council approving the planned unit development of the Roost by a 13-to-5 margin, the fight to keep the 150-seat restaurant off Oak Street in Riverside, which will have liquor sales and live entertainment, isn’t over yet.

An open letter from Positive Riverside Optimized Urban Development, a citizen activist group, outlines the path forward.

PROUD notes, correctly, that “Council persons Jim Love and Lori Boyer both spoke to the limits of their time against the Roost bill. Councilman Love delivered a line-by-line takedown of the illegality of approving this PUD in the residential character section of our overlay, and Councilwoman Boyer gave a withering account of the opposition’s scant testimony, as well as that of the city’s own Planning Department, concerning their expanded definitions of what a PUD actually is.”

Indeed, as FloridaPolitics.com documented, Love and Boyer took issue with the elastic nature of definitions and terminology from the planning department.

Love got the best line in, noting that “the lobbyists’ parking calculations are the same as the planning department’s,” asking “who is doing the homework here?”

PROUD has its theory.

“Almost every vote in City Council is unanimous. This vote represented a handful of conscientious people standing up against a tide of political money and influence for what is right. Council persons Jim Love, Lori Boyer, John Crescimbeni, Bill Gulliford, and Joyce Morgan (who changed her vote from the LUZ meeting) are to be commended,” asserted the letter.

And PROUD is undaunted.

“We have 30 days to file an appeal, and there is some advantage to waiting a bit in order to give ourselves more prep time, which is the current plan. PROUD and many others from our community will be both fundraising for our attorney’s fees, and assisting with research,” the group claims.

“Our legal case here is strong, and we have always felt that our chances were significantly better in court than in any political arena. The appeal is, and has always been, our best chance at victory,” the activists add.

Given that they were very clear about intending to take this to court if council ruled adversely to their interests, the appeal is no surprise.

One issue that was clear during the debate in committee, and then in council: PROUD’s representation was overmatched by Steve Diebenow, who knows the relevant zoning law and who has assiduously cultivated strong relationships with everyone in city hall.

Will the appeal go differently?

The debate in committee led to some conditions, such as no dinner service outside, as well as deliveries and garbage pickups between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

However, parking still remains an issue; as is neighborhood impact.

As well as the compatibility of a 150-seat restaurant with the residential character of the neighborhood.

Stay tuned.