Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[Timkin]

They just did a decent secure job at Annie Lytle.  Of course it remains to be seen how long it stays in place, but it certainly was a better securing measure than in the past.

M-train... sorry.. don't mean to be pessimistic ..... I'm really weary of buildings coming down like they are nothing, in a city whose leadership leaves a great deal to be desired.  Could not agree more that the owner is negligent, as is / was the owner of Annie Lytle, and for that matter,  What about the owners of Wormans?  A car hit the building.. Can't be the buildings fault so it had to be the driver of the car.. Perhaps they didn't have insurance... Don't know , and now it doesn't matter if they did or not. This is YET again another ridiculous demolition , initiated by our lovely MCCD . (FOR THAT, I BLAME the CITY ) .   Great job MCCD.. USELESS group.

[WmNussbaum]

The city does not make money on code enforcement. If there is a violation that is to be corrected, the city gets bids and awards the job to the low bidder. The city pays and imposes the lien for the amount it paid. The problem is that the city rarely forecloses its lien. If it did, then it might make some money on the interest rate applicable to the lien principal - assuming it got paid and didn't end up owning the parcel through its foreclosure.

If the city began foreclosing its liens, it might have the effect of making property owners more inclined to keep their properties from being in violation because they would know that if the city cured the problem by demolition or whatever, they would have to pony up pretty soon or lose the property.

The really funny thing about some properties - and Bostwick Bldg. may be one - is that the city sends out notices that the building has to be either brought into code compliance or demolished. I have seen at least one case in which the owner said, "okay, I can't afford to fix it up so I'll demolish," and then the city denied the demolition permit. WTF???

[sheclown]

my my.  If the city isn't making money off of a $35 lawn job which is charged out at $300, then there is truly something broken.

[Ernest Street]

I think it would be a logical progression for MetroJacksonville to find out where some of these people involved live..Cough Ponte Vedra..cough Atlantic Beach..cough..Baymeadows..cough cough..or out of town owners that still keep the prices at a 2007 level...GET A CLUE!.... get back here and see the poverty and re-adjust your prices !
I would LOVE to see some Paparazzi type pics of their palatial spreads!

Maybe some plain simple SHAMEFULL pictures of their personal homes would wake some of the "Good Old Boy Club" up..
YES! you know who you are and you are being watched!

Oh never mind..they EARNED their wealth right?

My whole point is these people do this stuff under almost TOTAL ANONYMITY!  lets expose someone and see how they squirm!

I have seen personal property yellow tagged for lawn no more than 12" BUT!...the medians are 27" tall..(Mc Duff Ave)

[strider]

The city does not make money on code enforcement. If there is a violation that is to be corrected, the city gets bids and awards the job to the low bidder. The city pays and imposes the lien for the amount it paid. The problem is that the city rarely forecloses its lien. If it did, then it might make some money on the interest rate applicable to the lien principal - assuming it got paid and didn't end up owning the parcel through its foreclosure.

If the city began foreclosing its liens, it might have the effect of making property owners more inclined to keep their properties from being in violation because they would know that if the city cured the problem by demolition or whatever, they would have to pony up pretty soon or lose the property.

The really funny thing about some properties - and Bostwick Bldg. may be one - is that the city sends out notices that the building has to be either brought into code compliance or demolished. I have seen at least one case in which the owner said, "okay, I can't afford to fix it up so I'll demolish," and then the city denied the demolition permit. WTF???

Odd, as when I said something similar - the city never collects on the fines or liens - to a member of General Counsel, the response was "you'd be surprised"  and said it with a smile on his face.  The city makes money off of MCCD, at least General Counsels's office thinks it does.  Another aspect many don't know about is the influx of funding from sources like NSP and Jacksonville Journey, often used in the past to pay for demolition and the like.  What are the odds that none of that funding ever gets used for admin?  From personal experience, I did pay a lien within a couple of months or so of having it levied against me because I had the house for sale and found a buyer.  In this case, I was not notified, but the previous owner was and I was not given the opportunity to correct myself as even MCCD did not know it needed corrected until they broke into the house (to use the MCCD supervisor's words).  Though it has a been awhile, the contractor who re-boarded the few windows said he made about $800.00.  The rest of the $2,500.00 I paid was charged out to admin.  I guess it takes a lot of admin to break into a house. 

As to the demolish or repair comments, that in a nut shell is the problem.  Repair or Demolish sounds OK, until you realize that when you talk to MCCD, repair means fully to current code.  They can't make you do that legally in most cases, but people think they can.  Basic scare tactics.  And of course, once one thing is done, they find two more to complain about.  And the only time the owner gets told no when they want to demolish is in Historic Districts or over landmarks.  And not always then. Though we are trying to change that so it is always no and that MCCD makes policy changes so that they help rather than hinder this city.

[mtraininjax]

my my.  If the city isn't making money off of a $35 lawn job which is charged out at $300, then there is truly something broken.

Well, you do remember that hammers billed to the government cost $300, so I would expect a lawn cutting to be more than a hammer. 

[thelakelander]

At the very least, preserving the facade along Bay and Ocean Streets should be considered.  However, would this comply with the MCCD's definition of demolish?

[WmNussbaum]

Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?

Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.

She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.

[sheclown]

So $300 is the LOWEST bid it can get for lawn mowing? 

Wow.  That stinks of major corruption.

[sheclown]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

[mtraininjax]

I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.

[thelakelander]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

I'm all for mothballing.

[Timkin]

Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?

Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.

She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.

     We got it , Wm.   

[ben says]

I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...). If we ever plan on downtown making a resurgence as a cultural/entertainment center, as opposed to a civic center, we need to use Bostwick (and other empty buildings....Library) as something interesting. Something that will generate organic growth and foot traffic along East Bay. NOT another building where people show up for work, 8-5, then leave for the burbs the second work is over.

[Timkin]

^ I ll second that.  We have too much damn government in downtown now.   WAY too much.  That is (in part) why buildings like the Bostwick building will likely NOT be saved.

   You wanna revive downtown?  You wanna save buildings?  Get rid of the deadwood that initiates the destruction of these places.  Get rid of the mind set that has NO value or concern for anything historic or important. Get rid of the mindless groups that GET PAID, to ensure that we lose everything that was ever beautiful or significant.    This behavior has been increasing for the last half century and it has to be done away with before we have nothing at all left. ( We aren't that far away from being there, now)

    Get a government in place, of people who are committed to making downtown Jacksonville a destination again , instead of a government collective with massive areas of void empty spaces and parking garages.