Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[bornnative]

The last advertised price I saw was $225k.  I understand that at least one cash offer has been made this year in the mid $100ks, and apparently declined, given that the owners are again pursuing demolition.  Unless a white knight emerges that is willing & able to pay too much for the building just for the sake of saving it, I'm afraid this may be a lost cause.

[fsujax]

Well guys if I had the money I would buy it and work with PSOS to mothball it.

[Timkin]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

"WE"  the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City.  "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns.   If  "HE" had maintained his building..  that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A.  HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.

  Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.

Again we sing the same old tune.  If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad.  The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot,  a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage.    Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases.  I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL .  But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.   

" HE "  like many building owners , is negligent.  "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed.  We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening.  I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.

LMAO..  That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up.   What I have said is  the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.

[sheclown]

Well guys if I had the money I would buy it and work with PSOS to mothball it.

Love this guy!!

[bill]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

"WE"  the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City.  "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns.   If  "HE" had maintained his building..  that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A.  HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.

  Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.

Again we sing the same old tune.  If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad.  The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot,  a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage.    Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases.  I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL .  But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.   

" HE "  like many building owners , is negligent.  "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed.  We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening.  I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.

LMAO..  That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up.   What I have said is  the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.

It does not matter if you care or not. You either have the money to do it and you have not purchased it or you want to sit around and talk about what we should spend other people's money on. Either way shut up and do it or shut up and and stop whining. My guess is you can and will do neither.   

[Timkin]

Umm - Two things:

One.  That's "preserved"?  It appears to be a derelict building, the roof of which has caved in, with some foliage growing inside.  Furthermore, it looks like the walls are crumbling at some places as well.  Am I misunderstanding something here?

Two.  What's this "we" business??  The Bostwick Building has a private owner.  There's no "we"; only "he", and "he" seems to want to tear his building down. 

"WE"  the taxpayers fund the salaries of the City.  "WE" pay these bone heads to assess fines and liens on derelict buildings people like "HE" owns.   If  "HE" had maintained his building..  that is just the basics, like keeping a roof on his building , A.  HE would most likely be able to sell the building to someone else who WILL do something with it other than demolish it, and B. "HE" wouldn't be applying to have it now ,bulldozed. That is, removed , forever from the city.

  Just because someone owns a property does NOT give them the right to willfully neglect it to the point that it has to be demolished.

Again we sing the same old tune.  If Jacksonville had 10 % of the historic building stock it once had, then losing this one small building might not be so bad.  The fact is they have mindlessly razed so many buildings , many of them with no structural defect whatsoever and replaced them with a derelict lot,  a slab of the former building, and a bunch of weeds and garbage.    Now you can claim its his to do with as he pleases.  I just love to hear this.. its so TYPICAL .  But it is hindering to our very very few remaining pieces of history.   

" HE "  like many building owners , is negligent.  "He" has let his building sit and rot and now wants to have it removed.  We are supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this from happening.  I ll be damned if it doesn't any way, and folks like you , think its A-okay because "its his building" .


Amazingly sad.   And even more sad, is  "WE" the voting , taxpaying public, allows this shit to continue, and pay these idiots to continue taking buildings out.    And people like you think its okay, because , after all, its not our building.

No , its not our building. But it is our heritage.  Maybe you do not care about it.  I very definitely do.

If you care so much then why not buy the building and fix it up? Did not think so, so shut up.

LMAO..  That is a classy suggestion, Bill .. NO I WON'T Shut up.   What I have said is  the truth .. if you don't like that, sorry but I won't shut up.

It does not matter if you care or not. You either have the money to do it and you have not purchased it or you want to sit around and talk about what we should spend other people's money on. Either way shut up and do it or shut up and and stop whining. My guess is you can and will do neither.   

Is your post supposed to have some merit?  Because all you seem to be doing is telling me to shut up.  I suppose you are among those that would see the place demolished.  You're entitled to your opinion.

But you sound like a 6 year old telling me or anyone else to shut up.   You do realize when the City razes buildings (not saying they are razing this one ) you help pay that.   

To be upfront , I don't have the money .. I would gladly chip in to, however , a cause to help mothball the building , as some other organizations do, and myself and my volunteer crew do on another landmark that someone else owns.

What are you doing to help , other than thinking you're helping by telling me to be silent. ?  Are you an owner/moderator of the forum? 

I'm not about to shut up Bill, but you can keep telling me to do so.

[Ralph W]

Bill, I'm with Timkin on this one.  Just think, there are 19 people deciding what to do with other peoples money in this town and, they are collecting a salary to do it and, people like Timkin and you, if you vote, put them in the position to spend other peoples money.

It's also people like Timkin and me and other individuals who one at a time, one after another, influence how the 19 people spend other peoples money. Timkin, by himself, or me, by myself and you, by yourself, certainly do not have the financial wherewithall to purchase and renovate any historically relevant structure, but, if enough of us open our mouths, present sound arguments, and show by deed if not by hard cash, that there is a compelling reason for those 19 people to spend other peoples money on a project, it can and will get done.

Also, if said compelling arguments and non-monetary deeds and a proliferation of like minded individuals can persuade those 19 people to spend other peoples money then it is entirely feasable that a private deep pocket could jump on the bandwagon, too.

[Dog Walker]

Timkin, with limited resources but unlimited enthusiasm, has for the past six years worked tirelessly to save one of the ten most endangered historic buildings in Jacksonville.  He has inspired others to work with him and countless gallons of sweat later, this small group has removed tons of vegetation and debris from around the building.

He constantly raises the profile of the building in the community to try to get it returned to use.

You DO NOT question the fitness of someone like TIm to comment on saving historic buildings.

[sheclown]

Tim is truly an inspiration.  He is preservation with gloves and sweat. 

[jcjohnpaint]

+1

[Ocklawaha]

+1000  ABSOLUTELY! Timkin is strictly 'top shelf.'

Perhaps I hear the rumbling of a new NON-PROFIT here Timkin?  I believe it could be done, then we could lobby for that entertainment/mall/TOD with the Skyway connecting it. Let me know folks, send in a PM.

[BackinJax05]

Timkin RULES!!

[mtraininjax]

Timkin, by himself, or me, by myself and you, by yourself, certainly do not have the financial wherewithall to purchase and renovate any historically relevant structure, but, if enough of us open our mouths, present sound arguments, and show by deed if not by hard cash, that there is a compelling reason for those 19 people to spend other peoples money on a project, it can and will get done.

Yeah that worked so well for the Human Rights bill. Unfortunately the "good ideas" notion and working the system sometimes requires more than Human Capital to grease the squeaky wheel. In this case, money talks and BS walks.

Every building that is vacant is just a paperclip, staple and Code Enforcement letter away from the wrecking ball, unless the almighty dollar shows up to save it. No other way around it, in Jax.

[Timkin]

^  Right you are, M-train... I guess.   

Not sure how the Human Rights Bill and saving historic buildings equate in the same sentence, except that most of our illustrious bigoted City Council who claim Christianity, still think it is okay to be bigots and deny rights to a certain sector of the population BECAUSE that group does not fit their criteria.

You're spot on about the buildings though.  It will take money , obviously to do that.  But I still find it amazing that our City seems to have train car loads (No pun intended, Ock)  of money to expend , at will , turning buildings into rubble, but mysteriously, NONE  to help save them.   Its not their money, its ours.  We should be directing how it is spent.

As to the human rights bill, it became painfully apparent to me that THIS panel will never allow it.   So the answer is to get those people out, and put people in who WILL .  Probably would go a long ways towards solving BOTH problems.

[Debbie Thompson]

I'm not one who thinks Mr. Kahn should be expected to buy all our neglected buildings downtown and fix them up. In fact, I think that's a silly suggestion.  Really?  Just because he has potloads of money, we should put our hands in his pocket?

That said, the building should be saved and restored, or repurposed.  Like they did the Florida Theatre, the Dyal Upchurch Building, and like Eddie Farrah law firm did their building.  Oh, and the old Carnegie Library Building at Ocean and Adams, now a law firm.  And Central Fire Station.  Need I go on?