"Emergency Demolition"

[Timkin]

Again....Bottom line not nearly enough people especially people who govern the City, CARE about historic structures.  If one has enough money , or political pull, or good attorneys they can accomplish anything they want.  With regard to this most recently destroyed structure , there is absolutely NO good reason for destroying it.  At the very least, they could have let someone come in and strip all of the the reusable features of the house to be used on restoration/renovation projects elsewhere in Springfield .  No regard for even that.

As another poster stated, I have lost faith in this City and it's total lack of regard for anything that was ever beautiful or older in design or significant .  I cannot imagine what it will look like in two more decades if it continues as it has for the last half-century. There will be nothing left .   We have neighborhoods with deed restrictions that are utterly ridiculous in their expectations, yet we have a Historic PROMINENT neighborhood of Jacksonville ,where pretty much , anything goes, as has many important significant and Historic Downtown Structures.  No regard at all and this is the trend that is evidently to continue. We have a current Government that does not care, and I am ,sadly , pretty sure no one in the Mayoral race who is going to have any regard for saving our historic homes and Buildings.  So sad and unfair to those who really wish to see these places spared. 

The person who acquired the building probably never entertained giving the building to someone to move or to dismantle to reuse pieces of it.  Never a consideration. just get it down and gone, just like all of the other great buildings that have been razed. 

It is scary that we live in a City/County/ World where few voices are heard unless they have wealth or political pull. 

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

the building owner posted his side ov the story over on myspringfield.  it sounded like hogwash to me, but everyöne should probably read it and draw their own conclusions.

[peestandingup]

Here is his post: http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1086&sid=1dc1ff5949ebd77cafabd6e297f723e8#p8842

by AMacris » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:43 pm

There has been much misinformation and speculation from certain parties regarding 1612 Market, that I thought I should give the silent majority the other side to the story from the actual HOME OWNER's perspective.

When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished. After discussing the idea with HPC, they made me believe this was unlikely to happen. So while I discussed total demolition at that time with HPC, it was never formally requested nor formally denied.

It was made very clear to me by HPC that the only option was to rehab the structure. At this point, I began the discovery process of what it would actually take to fix the laundry list of codes violations that were now placed on the property, including the roof, siding, facia, porch, and paint. Codes gave me 60 days to bring the structure up to code or they were going to fine us $250 a day until it was corrected. Hearing that, we jumped on the rehab, getting quotes, discussing options with contractors, etc. At this point, I came before HPC to present my plan. This included a new roof, fixing the rotten siding and facia, front porch, paint, etc. We also requested removing a non-original two-story rear porch enclosure. This plan was approved by HPC and work commenced. My mindset at this time was rehabbing the structure.

The new roof went on the structure at a significant expense to me. I also had to replace more than 50% of the planks on the roof. Around that time, I had to appear before the special master regarding the violations still existing on the property. I was given 180 days to correct the remaining structure.

The next item was to take off the non-original back porch enclosure. This is a major point of contention I have with certain parties. They speculate that I masterminded the structural defects of this property during this process. Untrue. The back was painstakingly removed -- by hand. It took a five-person crew four days to do it, at a cost double what it would have been to do it mechanically. And no, despite what you may have read on the boards, it wasn't me who performed the work. The structure of the main house was virtually unaffected, as it rested on its own foundation, and had much of the original exterior wall in place. Any implications otherwise are pure fiction.

After removing the back portion, we revealed extreme structural damage. This damage was previously hidden by the enclosure, not caused by the removal of the enclosure. After seeing this damage, I brought in an independent structural engineer to give me his assessment of the property. This report came back and detailed a house in critical structural failure. At this point, I'd invested many thousands of dollars beyond the original purchase price and had uncovered the need to virtually replace the structure of the house. It was the engineer's professional and licensed opinion that it come down.

It was then that I contacted my inspector. Inspector O'Laughlin and I reviewed the property and he said it needed to be condemned. At that point, the city brought several other stakeholders, including their engineer, who independently corroborated my engineer's report. Two engineers agreed this property is an imminent safety hazard. After that, this matter was completely out of my hands. And access to the property for any sort of salvage operation became impossible -- and illegal. Shortly thereafter, we were issued a 72-hour order for demolition.

These are the facts. And this is all my family will say regarding this matter.

Now, the question remains, where do we go from here?

This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?

My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here.

I realize this is a non-PC stand. And folks are reluctant to go on record for fear of being outcast. After all, it's much easier to wave the flag for rehab. But folks, it will take more than friending SOS on Facebook. Rehabbing scores of critically failing homes without the market incentives to do so will take an eternity. To make a dent in this problem, we will need an organization that's capable of raising millions. Is SOS that organization? SPAR? Sustainable Springfield? All of them? Or something else? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know we need to come together and find an answer.

The community we live in is more than just the homes. I can honestly say I have more friends here than in any other neighborhood I've ever lived. After this, I realize some of you may think of me differently. Maybe even hate me. That's something you and I will have to live with, and I accept it. But I won't dwell on it.

Hmm, probably not much he could do if that's all true.

I wonder just how many homes in Springfield are in this sort of shape (gone past the point of no return) & are hiding their flaws?? I'd guess it's a lot. Maybe more than enough to lose it's historical moniker.

So, I guess my point is, there's really no money for people to fix up these homes with (with all thats going on nowadays) & there likely won't be for a long time. Is it better to mothball these homes (many of which may never be rehabbed anyway for either financial or structural reasons), or go ahead & tear them down while gritting your teeth & try to bring new innovative life to where they once stood (without a lot of the BS restrictions), but if that process possibly means losing the historic moniker?? Should Springfield even continue to be an "historic district" anyway or is it doing more harm than good to keep that recognition??

[Bativac]

Buried in there is this paragraph:

"This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?

My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here."

I actually agree with much of this. Are there enough volunteers to stabilize homes that are or may be in danger of falling apart? The city does not have money, or will not spend money, to perform this type of work. So where does the money or the labor come from?

He does bring up one of my fears, back when my wife and I were looking for a home in 2008 - what if we buy the place, it looks good, then we open it up and it turns out to be unliveable? That was certainly a factor in our decision to buy elsewhere.

Hm. I've heard his side of the story and now I'm not sure how to feel about the whole thing. All I know is it's a shame another house was torn down, regardless of the reasoning.

[peestandingup]

Buried in there is this paragraph:

"This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?

My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here."

I actually agree with much of this. Are there enough volunteers to stabilize homes that are or may be in danger of falling apart? The city does not have money, or will not spend money, to perform this type of work. So where does the money or the labor come from?

He does bring up one of my fears, back when my wife and I were looking for a home in 2008 - what if we buy the place, it looks good, then we open it up and it turns out to be unliveable? That was certainly a factor in our decision to buy elsewhere.

Hm. I've heard his side of the story and now I'm not sure how to feel about the whole thing. All I know is it's a shame another house was torn down, regardless of the reasoning.

Yeah, they were my fears as well when my wife & I were seriously considering selling our current home to buy in Spr last year. We toured a lot of fixer uppers that probably had similarly hidden ghosts in their closets just waiting to be uncovered.

I think really, the truly unfortunate thing with Spr is the timing. Had this passion & resurgence started earlier (when the money was good) & done properly, I think it would have been mostly restored by now & be in the clear. But couple that with our current economic crisis & the artificial boom (then complete bust) over there, not to mention what city it's in (one who obviously couldn't give 2 shits about preservation), etc, may have sealed her doom. At least as far as saving a lot of her historic stock.

So do you keep on mothballing homes that could very well be beyond salvation both structural wise & financial wise (which could in turn very well be holding the neighborhood back), or let them go, lose the historic recognition, but with a grand scheme to reinvent the neighborhood into something else & allow much more freedom to do so??

[AmyLynne]

When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished.

So he bought a house that he thought should be demolished...only to sink a bunch of money into it before eventually tearing it down??

Am I the only one that finds this odd?

[fieldafm]

When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished.

So he bought a house that he thought should be demolished...only to sink a bunch of money into it before eventually tearing it down??

Am I the only one that finds this odd?

LOL, yes

A lot of what he is saying in the subsequent paragraphs seem reasonable, as long as you ignore that first paragraph.

I just got done with a house built in 1890ish that was in so much worse shape than this one.  Hell it was straight MISSING piers.

[ChriswUfGator]

That guy is full of crap...

His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."

He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.

The guy is full of crap. I think it's clear to anyone with any moderate ability to read between the lines that, as he admitted himself, he bought it with the intent of demolishing it, likely to increase the size of his yard. He whines about the threat of fines and the expense of fixing it up, all of which he knew before he ever bought it. The guy bought it with the intent of knocking it down and increasing the size of his own yard, and simply concocted a fake emergency and the threat of fines and renovation costs, all of which he could have avoided by not buying it in the first place.

What a total crock of B.S.

[peestandingup]

That guy is full of crap...

His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."

He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.

True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.

Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??

[AmyLynne]

That guy is full of crap...

His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."

He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.

True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.

Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??

I don't know about you...but if I had sunk so much money into a house, I wouldn't have been so willing to accept the demo without so much as a whimper!!

[ChriswUfGator]

That guy is full of crap...

His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."

He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.

True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.

Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??

How can you call it a "change of heart" when demolition was actually what he admits wanting from the beginning?

[peestandingup]

That guy is full of crap...

His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."

He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.

True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.

Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??

How can you call it a "change of heart" when demolition was actually what he admits wanting from the beginning?

I didn't, I just asked if its possible. Its not like me (or you) know this guy & know the whole story yet. All we know is what we've talked about here & what he's said on the other forum. Let's not automatically assume the worst before we have all the info.

Which is why I asked if he could show proof of all the repairs to the roof & such that he said he did (and paid big bucks for allegedly). Isn't that fair??

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah, except I think what happened is he wanted to knock it down, was told that'd be OK, then was feeling pressured by Preservation S.O.S. and neighbors so he started renovating it, only to later get frustrated and say "screw it" and knock it down anyway. Which is what he wanted from the beginning.

If he didn't want to deal with renovating that house, you know what he should've done? Not buy it.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Which is why I asked if he could show proof of all the repairs to the roof & such that he said he did (and paid big bucks for allegedly). Isn't that fair??

Big bucks?  Hardly.  But he did do a re-roof around 07/2010 for around $5,300 (that is an estimate provided by the roofing contractor for permitting fees)

https://buildinginspections.coj.net/bid_secure/default.aspx

[strider]

I was called in on this house after the owner found out that it most likely would not be approved for demolition.  From the description given me over the phone and e-mails, I though I would find the second floor ceiling sitting on the floor, but what I found was a few water stains on the ceiling.  This house was in good shape.  I gave the owner a bid that covered all the items that would allow code enforcement to close it's case. It was under 10K.  Later, after he decided that to get good access from his yard on the corner to this back yard he had to tear off the rear porch and addition, he called me back in to access the sill damage and my partner and I (over 30 years historic house experience between the two of us) end up with a verbal bid to him of still less that 10K for all the structural work, including both the new found and the previously known work. About this time, the guy started to put me off.

I now know why he put me off, he wanted and found someone to give him the ammunition to get rid of this house and do what he initially bought the property for.  Do not let his post fool you.  This house was a very affordable fix and he, the structural engineer and contractor he got to support his wishes and I know it.

The owner is not a bad guy.  I give him credit, he played the system well.  But do not make excuses for him.  I also know that the Historic Department is intending at this point to pursue legal actions against him.  I hope they succeed.

This madness has to stop.  We have lost far too many houses to these unfounded and often made up "unsafe to walk by" claims.  They are not being taken for any valid reason, they are being taken for purely social, and in this case, selfish reasons.

You will hear much more of this subject of demolitions in Springfield in the weeks to come.  The fight is on.