Annie Lytle School Purchased

[Timkin]

You can rest assured that Milne did his homework before doing this...and even if it is discovered that he did not, how is it going to change the condition of the building?  It went from having an owner who didnt spend a dime on preserving it, to an out-of-town owner who hasnt spent a dime on preserving it, and may actually expect to flip it to someone else. I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind buying a landlocked building.  In my heart I believe this action was deliberate so that demolition is forced , and Milne will not have to "look" like the bad guy. 

IMO  he should have unloaded the entire tract of properties years ago to someone who would have been willing to do something to save it.  I PERSONALLY referred to him , a developer , out of Atlanta, who develops Schoolhouses into lofts.. At that time he was still in a contract with the nice lady from St. Augustine who wanted to demolish the building.  He walked away from it because im certain , between the two of these people, if they were'nt going to successfully make it work, they were going to make sure noone else did, and they most likely inflated the purchase price to some unbelievable amount , or flat out refused to sell.

  There could have been a feasible solution to this long ago, but Milne, wasn't having that unless he could keep his hands in the pie, as he continues to do.  I have stacks of Times Union articles where preservationists lament neglect, while he says ,this is doable... Economics were not always such as they are.   This move ( changing of owners) was deliberate and self-serving.  It will probably result in the building's demise. 

About the only justice I could see done is IF the new owner ALSO would not be allowed to tear it down.... and Milne could not develop his remaining land because the School is there.   This situation STINKS and reeks of underhandedness.. it has all along.  So I say, if this is the way these two companies play ball, they should have to reap the consequences.   Let the building sit right there and rot down , and both of them continue to pay taxes on land and building that is not generating them a dime..   and Justice is served.

[Timkin]

Some news...or maybe this isn't really news ....Code Enforcement has been trying to get ahold of Tarpon with, according to the CE Report , no response.  Repeatedly they have requested for Tarpon to comply by securing the building.. evidently they have ignored this.. So Im not sure if the City or who exactly did secure it at one point but its now standing open again..Same old story. Kids in it every day..now the back of the building is covered with Grafitti..and the owner , Tarpon is apparently doing nothing to comply in any way.  I dont know why...it may be in part, that they have ,technically NO ACCESS to their property, as FH4 owns everything surrounding it.  So if I am reading this document correctly, now fines (daily?) are being assessed.. So I think this may be part of the "Master Hearing" on the School.   None of this is good news obviously.. and some who don't really want the building saved ,may finally realize their wishes.  I am at a loss why anyone would A: buy a landlocked property and not know it beforehand, and B: not do anything to comply ...but then there are alot of things I do not understand.

[Springfielder]

I agree with you, that there's something not right about this entire deal, and I also question why anyone would buy property and not the land...that's just never set right with me. I've also felt that Milne has been a jerk from the get go...he's never really put forth any effort, instead he allowed you and the other volunteers to do what he should've paid to have done all those years.

At this point, I'm not sure what can be done...although unless code enforcement is saying that this is an emergency and is in imminent danger of collapsing onto another structure and/or a threat to public safety, there's no reason to grant demolition. You can always attend the HPC meetings and speak up about it.

[simms3]

I have a question.  Can someone detail me the financing Milne used to buy the property and what kind of mortgage covenants were in place?  His negligence could be said to have led to "waste" which is usually grounds for breaching the contract if it's not corrected.  Also, doesn't the city have code enforcement?  When a property owner allows a building to go into such disrepair, isn't code being violated to at least some degree?  And is it to a degree where a city can take control?  Also, tax liens being involuntary judicial judgements have priority over mortgage liens (even though FL is a lien theory state).  I guess Milne's group paid cash?  I'm too lazy to look this up and I'm sure that someone on here knows.

[Timkin]

In answer to Springfielder's question that is a simple answer. FH4 somehow ( this is beyond me, since land and building are taxable) broke the property into lots...possibly to accommodate townhouses, although IMO Townhouses would fly just about as well as the School and a 100 unit addition would fly... but I think this was accomplished to subvert the entire taxable property and instead , pay tax on JUST the lots. If you look at the lots on the PA site, they are cut up into small lots.  obviously individual small lots with no building have not much taxable value .  With a building..even one in disrepair to this degree, taxes mount.. Im certain they intentionally let taxes accrue so that they would lose the building....let it be someone elses burden...and it is in more ways than one.  Again I pose the question.....this is what I do NOT get....why would anyone buy a property and NOT know beforehand that it is landlocked...that is , all adjacent properties are owned by another corporation or foundation.  Is it possible that FH4 and Tarpon ARE acquainted with one another,but nobodys saying?  Is it possible that this continued neglect is deliberate so that one day, the City will have no recourse but to take the property or at least impose on us, the taxpayers, the added burden of now dismantling it because A: its in bad shape and B: FH4 deliberately did this arrangement waiting for a vacant lot, after someone else bears the burden of the taxes, security, and eventually demolition.  DW pointed out that the land is neither worth the cost of wrecking the building and hauling it away, and certainly not the cost of rehab.  So why would another corporation do this?  It makes no sense whatsoever, and my bet is in the end SOMEONE did something that most of the rest of us could not get away with.   I know what the building looked like the first time I was in it around 1985 and it was mostly intact.  a little grafitti here and there and one or two windows broken but nothing ....NOTHING AT ALL like it was in 2006. Vandals are to thank in part but basic building maintenance, in this case , CHRONIC LACK OF , is why this place is in such sad shape.. Why can a homeowner not get away with this but a foundation can?     

As to how the building was bought, that I have zero Idea of.. I know what was paid for it and all of its land .. but how (mortgage or not)  I have no idea.

[Springfielder]

I have a question.  Can someone detail me the financing Milne used to buy the property and what kind of mortgage covenants were in place?  His negligence could be said to have led to "waste" which is usually grounds for breaching the contract if it's not corrected.  Also, doesn't the city have code enforcement?  When a property owner allows a building to go into such disrepair, isn't code being violated to at least some degree?  And is it to a degree where a city can take control?  Also, tax liens being involuntary judicial judgements have priority over mortgage liens (even though FL is a lien theory state).  I guess Milne's group paid cash?  I'm too lazy to look this up and I'm sure that someone on here knows.

I can respond about code enforcement, and yes, the city has a code enforcement department. There are field inspectors that will cite a property for violations, and if it becomes severe enough, they can end up becoming a rolling fine of 250.00 a day, every day until the violations have been satisfied and of course, the fines/liens paid. The city can assume the property, but refuses to do so...which I've always felt was stupid on their behalf, because the majority of these rolling fines are never paid, and until just recently, the property would end up being taken down with what's called demo by neglect.

[Timkin]

......and if this building isnt a Shining example of what happens when you put not a thin dime into even basic building maintenance, therefore NEGLECT , I do not know what building would qualify.

Because I personally have seen it extensively around 1985 and then subsequently in 06, and so on, there is no question that the neglect is intentional.  I remember the Auditorium with lightfixtures and glass in the windows (they were only partially boarded from the ground up, then...even the wood flooring was intact.. there was evidence of water damage ( paint and plaster coming off , but not appreciably.   The main building still had some furnishings, all of the light fixtures, etc..  So Had the roof been maintained we still would have a mostly intact building.. all of the damage done by vandals are stuff that would have been removed and replaced anyway.. At the price the building was purchased for then , the cost of the roof repairs then would have been a fraction of what they now would be.  This was preventable AND at that time , feasible to do.  There is NO EXCUSE for the building's present condition .

[strider]

While I can not really speak for the specifics of this building, traditional code enforcement often makes it very difficult to do anything to the building.  If the owner fixes that relatively minor roof leak, but can not fix the rest of the code issues, then the building still gets fined and eventually comes down anyway.  There is no incentive for the owner who can not just do it all to do anything at all.  Add in the fact that while some may fight for the building, others are often saying it needs to go for social reasons.  The end result is that the only way out for owners, if they can not financially restore the building, is to take it down.

I prefer the term "demolition by reckless policy" rather than demolition by neglect.  The current polices set up the owner to fail and tries to use fear to force owners to do something and yet those same polices remove all incentives for the owner to take care of their property. Of course, some owners do just neglect the properties, but I suspect that if a method was in place to help and guide rather than just remove the incentives, the vast majority of owners would opt to protect their investments.

The good news is that the city did not intentionally create policies to end up with this result and while it may not be in time to really help this building, the city is now looking at ways to change the polices and promote saving and helping rather than demolition.  The best way to have this building, regardless of it's personal fate, have real meaning for the future is to support the city in making these changes and help those working for these changes get them passed into law.

[Dog Walker]

When given the choice of conspiracy or stupidity to explain a particular set of circumstances, it is always safest to chose stupidity because it is far more common.

Bet you that the Tarpon people just saw a 44,000 sq/ft building near the expressway for $86K and didn't look at the surrounding problems.  Egg on face now.

[ChriswUfGator]

When given the choice of conspiracy or stupidity to explain a particular set of circumstances, it is always safest to chose stupidity because it is far more common.

Bet you that the Tarpon people just saw a 44,000 sq/ft building near the expressway for $86K and didn't look at the surrounding problems.  Egg on face now.

I find the most common reasons behind these kind of things in Jacksonville is a hybrid of your theory.

A stupid conspiracy is not only possible, but usually explains the goings-on around here...

[Dog Walker]

A stupid conspiracy is not only possible, but usually explains the goings-on around here...

How true, how true!  Ivy Johnson, Jennifer Carrol and Rivers Construction spring instantly to mind.

[Ralph W]

Conspiracy....

The expansion of the Arts Market from the river to the park will create a walkable, under cover potential with access to both sides of the end point. That's the Riverside Park and the school and the property surrounding the school.

I'd bet several somebodys have looked at that closely and see big bucks a-coming.

I'd also say there's a snowballs chance in hell that the school could ever be developed into a retirement center or just plain apartments because of the constant noise from the highway. Spend some time under that bridge and you'll see what I mean. The sound bouncing back and forth between the highway structure and the buildings would even irritate the deaf. Us old folks can't tolerate that much noise any more.

[billy]

At the risk of sounding naive, is there any foreseeable scenario whereby the two (is that correct?)
parties that own the building and the land would get out of the deal, and a nonprofit could step
in and try to do something arts related?

It could very likely be in the current owners best interest to do so.

Any conceivable redevelopment is going to be laborious, difficult and lengthy.
Maybe there needs to be a Riverside/ Brooklyn CDC .

As far as redevelopment program, some combination of arts related uses, possibly with some artists live/work placed away from I-95.

[billy]

 The saving grace for PS #4 is not going to be the merits of the building, especially given it's
condition, but the vitality of Riverside and the success of RAM.

[Timkin]

At the risk of sounding naive, is there any foreseeable scenario whereby the two (is that correct?)
parties that own the building and the land would get out of the deal, and a nonprofit could step
in and try to do something arts related?

It could very likely be in the current owners best interest to do so.

Any conceivable redevelopment is going to be laborious, difficult and lengthy.
Maybe there needs to be a Riverside/ Brooklyn CDC .

As far as redevelopment program, some combination of arts related uses, possibly with some artists live/work placed away from I-95.

Billy.... Two seperate owners... One owns the land surrounding the School , the other owns the building and the land directly under the building..

As far as either giving up..possibly the building owner but doubtfully the surrounding land owner.

ANY  possible reuse for the School would be wonderful.. Im sure most would agree, so long as it is preserved , rehabbed , and put into use.

Again so long as it stands , I think there is hope.. but the reality is , since 1971 ,give or take , it has been vacated.  It would appear with this particular arrangement, that another chapter would involve demoltion, either in part, or whole,and my guess would be as a whole.   I concur that any redevelopment would not be easy.  Financing and a willing source to dole out the enormous costs of rehabbing alone, assuming the two parties would give up/ donate the package to a NP, would be few and far between.   It has not happened since its aquisition, and the land owner now has really no liability.  The owner of the School does, and really cannot even access the place to do anything to it, assuming they would totally restore it, ( which THEY will never do)  

To me , the ONLY thing heretofore that has caused the building to remain, was its being placed in Landmark status in 2000.  If not for that , it would already be gone. Even that status will not save it , if someone , entering even without permission gets seriously hurt or worse.

 I wish there were some solution to this , other than a wrecking ball.  To a degree , I think that might have been the wishes of the prior owner, but not so much... There is a way to do most anything , if there is a will.