Abuse of Power: the loss of 129 East 2nd Street

[strider]

Autumn Martinage inspecting home prior to HPC meeting

I have listed the relevant sections of the Historic District and Landmark related ordinances at the bottom of the post.  I have included quotes from those sections as needed.

To begin with, I have been unable to find where the house at 129 East 2nd Street was ever a “formal track” house, meaning that there should be no argument that it must be handled under the current post mothballing ordinance version of the codes.

The Municipal Code Compliance Department must follow the same COA process as anyone else.  This was a change from the older version.  Today, a demolition must go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval.  Of course, as there must be, there is a provision to handle true emergencies.

A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection.

This obviously is for the cases where, as an example,  a fire has so badly damaged a building that it is more likely than not going to fall down on it's own and so truly poses a safety risk to those around it.  Common sense says that the city owes it to its residents to immediately remove the hazard.  There is also a protection to prevent the abuse of this.

However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action.

The fact that this says an application means that this after-the-fact COA still must go through the same process as any other demolition COA.  ie: Ms Kimberly Scott, the Chief of MCCD, has to justify the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street to the Historic Preservation Commission.   This brings us to the criteria the HPC will probably be directed to review this under by the Office of General Counsel (who will be looking at this to avoid potential lawsuits).

In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

Interesting as we already know that the HPC requested that Ms Scott have her department add additional bracing to stabilize the front porch on this house, which was by far the only part of the house that perhaps posed any public safety threat at all. This was done just 18 hours before the demolition contractor began tearing away at this historic house.

We also know that per the Office of General Counsel, once the HPC has denied permission to demolish a historic house, like they did at 1325 Laura Street, before Ms. Scott can decide to take the house as an emergency, some new event must occur. This would perhaps be a fire or a tree falling on the house that destablized the structure. In the case of 129 East 2nd Street, we have pictures dating back months with the house's condition unchanged.  We have e-mails from Chris Farley to both the Historical Department's staff and copied to Ms Scott where Ms. Farley claims that more material is coming off of the roof but Ms Autumn Martinage checking it herself and finding that the main house has seemed stable since 2011.

129 E 2nd Street appears to have lost some of its tar paper roof due to the elements (possibly from the storms last weekend) but it has not lost any more of the physical roof structure after reviewing Google Street View from 2011.  I did however note a possible structural issue with the street-facing gable feature that we will look at seeing if we can get that braced somehow.

separate porch roof in need of stabilization -- the basis of PSOS's request

We have pictures and statements from a very recent inspection done by contractors with restoration experience and city employees trained in historic matters saying the main house was stable.   We do have the possible issue with Ms. Scott bringing in her pals at Atlantic Engineering.  However, we have the results of the attempted demolition of 1647 Pearl Street and the personal testimony in how Atlantic Engineering handled another issue on East 9th Street to combat anything they might try to state.

Frankly, I do not see any way that this emergency demolition could be justified.  But of course, what will a denial at this point really mean?

I think the question is what should the penalties be when a department head like Ms Scott chooses to ignore the very laws she is charged with up-holding?  The penalties listed in the Historic Codes are really geared towards the owner or owners contractors rather than a rogue city department head.

a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner.

As you can see, this civil penalty could be pretty substantial, but how do you get a city employee to pay that even if it could be made to apply to her?  Also:

may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.

So, Ms. Scott could be made to replace the house.  Of course, in reality, any penalty would actually be paid by the city, meaning us taxpayers.

The best result of this would be a new department head, someone from outside the city preferably, or at least from outside the department, who would audit the policies and review the work by the department and do a thorough house cleaning.  The goal should be a Municipal Code Compliance Department that actually helps the citizens it serves.  Would it not be better for all of Jacksonville if a house that needed a simple and less expensive repair simply got that repair instead of years of taxpayer money being spent on a MCCD officer inspecting and doing paperwork and the eventual expensive demo that no one pays for?  Would it not be better for the neighbors if a house got mothballed if not repaired and looked good while it waited for a new owner or at least the ability of the current owner to fix it? That the MCCD officers actually worked with the residents of Jacksonville to achieve their proper goals?

Let's not let the loss of 129 East 2nd Street be for nothing.  Let's make it the symbol of positive change for all of Jacksonville.

abuse of power:  the loss of 129 E 2nd st

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:

Sec. 307.106. - Approval of changes to landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts; application procedures.

c) The City of Jacksonville and each independent agency of the City of Jacksonville or their agents or contractors shall be required to notify the Commission prior to planning and construction of improvement projects within an historic district or affecting a landmark or landmark site including, but not limited to, street improvements or repaving, sidewalks and curbs, drainage, water and sewer projects, street lighting, public utility poles, construction of utilities, building construction or demolition, tree trimming or removal, and other similar public improvements, except emergency actions that must be undertaken to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.


Sec. 307.111. - Enforcement; civil remedies.
b) In cases where a structure has been either demolished or relocated in violation of this Chapter, or where any building has to be demolished by the City pursuant to the property safety requirements of Chapter 518 and the owner of said building has received two or more notices from the City regarding neglect or failure to comply with Chapter 518 as they pertain to the structure, a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner. Additionally and separate from any civil penalty provision in this Section, there shall be no certificate of appropriateness issued for new development on the subject property for a period of one year from the date the City's judgment for civil penalties has become final, unless and only when such certificate of appropriateness is issued to correct and repair a partial demolition.
c)In addition to civil penalties, any person altering, demolishing or relocating all or any portion of property in violation of the provisions of this Chapter may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.


Sec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

[chris farley]

Since my emails have now been posted somewhat edited, I have to reply.

129 2nd was put on the DRC Agenda on May 7th out of my concern that the house was deteriorating so badly there was never any mention of demolition.  I have literally spent half of my time (13 years) trying to save buildings and finding history to support them.  It was the same with this house,  that day I went home and pulled up the old photo, it was a gorgeous house and looked at the original owner, his name was Hubbard and I intended to find out if he belonged to the well known family.   There were no hearts on that house, no one had taken any notice of it.

Here is what I posted but deleted from myspringfield.  I post it now to show how the emails were edited, even to whom they were sent.  (I have taken off the second house mentioned in Autumn's email it is being restored). It is a true sequence and I believe there are consequences for what took place afterwards, we shall see.

Quote
I am so tired of the untruths.
First of all I brought up 129 E 2nd at the DRC in May 7th - Gloria was present. At the end of the meeting Cathy and I were driving over to Hubbard, Gloria was on the street outside a house she is working on and waved me down.  She told me that code should be asked to brace the gable she had been over there, I guess with Autumn.   I went with Cathy back over to the house so she could see the situation, she is a very knowledgeable architect.  We were both worried with the flimsy bending supports. Anyway we then got this following email from Autumn - shown immediately below.  This was sent May 8
Quote

JoAnn and Chris,

I followed up with the two properties you mentioned yesterday in Design Review.

129 E 2nd Street appears to have lost some of its tar paper roof due to the elements (possibly from the storms last weekend) but it has not lost any more of the physical roof structure after reviewing Google Street View from 2011.  I did however note a possible structural issue with the street-facing gable feature that we will look at seeing if we can get that braced somehow.
End Quote of Autumn's email

I then sent out the following email, I had thought I had copied Gloria Devall but evidently I did not.  You can read what I said.  Essentially that the house was in dire need.  Maybe I am naive but I thought that the last sentence  of the email above meant that she and her office were going to do something.
I sent back the following:

Quote
Also sent May 8th
To: Martinage, Autumn, joann.tredennick, catherinedunc, Scott, Kimberly, McEachin, Joel

I went back to 2nd Street with Cathy.  That house porch is dangerous.  I cannot believe there has been less roof loss, the eaves on the front right hand and left hand side are awful. I do not remember it being that way, stuff must be falling. It is more than a “possible” structural issue.
Thanks for going over there I was going to send a message to Joel and Kim Scott, they are copied now.  Gloria DeVall said that code should be able to brace that upper porch, if anything is to be done it has to be done soon.  Those supports are bending as is what was left of the floor of the upper porch.  That house is in sincere trouble.
I am going to find out who owns the place, I know it was a police lady at one time and the house was no where near the shape then that it is now.
Chris Farley.

End quote.  You will note that I said I was copying Kim Scott, and I did - following what Gloria DeVall had said to me.

Now not only do I see that action to get the front braced was to be taken at the behest of PSOS, but, it is being said that there is a chain of emails between me and Kim Scott and that Chris Farley is responsible for the demolition.  My God the lies get worse. 
I did not notice any red hearts on the building, it was totally ignored by all and I brought it up out of concern.   I am just sick of the lies, but after all this to make me responsible for the demolition, it is beyond belief.
end quote

I need to ask for an emergency meeting of the DRC.  Neither SPAR or I deserve what has happened.  I do not know when the demolition was requested, I DID NOT know the house was coming down.  I was as shocked as anyone.  I went along 2nd street by accident, since I had been up to Publics and forgot to buy milk and decided to hit Winn Dixie on the way back - that is why I happened along the street.  I saw Kim Prior and wound down my window and asked if it fell.  I was amazed.

[iloveionia]

Since my emails have now been posted somewhat edited, I have to reply.

129 2nd was put on the DRC Agenda on May 7th out of my concern that the house was deteriorating so badly there was never any mention of demolition.  I have literally spent half of my time (13 years) trying to save buildings and finding history to support them.  It was the same with this house,  that day I went home and pulled up the old photo, it was a gorgeous house and looked at the original owner, his name was Hubbard and I intended to find out if he belonged to the well known family.   There were no hearts on that house, no one had taken any notice of it.

Here is what I posted but deleted from myspringfield.  I post it now to show how the emails were edited, even to whom they were sent.  (I have taken off the second house mentioned in Autumn's email it is being restored). It is a true sequence and I believe there are consequences for what took place afterwards, we shall see.

Quote
I am so tired of the untruths.
First of all I brought up 129 E 2nd at the DRC in May 7th - Gloria was present. At the end of the meeting Cathy and I were driving over to Hubbard, Gloria was on the street outside a house she is working on and waved me down.  She told me that code should be asked to brace the gable she had been over there, I guess with Autumn.   I went with Cathy back over to the house so she could see the situation, she is a very knowledgeable architect.  We were both worried and the flimsy bending supports. Anyway we then got this following email from Autumn - shown immediately below.  This was sent May 8
Quote

JoAnn and Chris,

I followed up with the two properties you mentioned yesterday in Design Review.

129 E 2nd Street appears to have lost some of its tar paper roof due to the elements (possibly from the storms last weekend) but it has not lost any more of the physical roof structure after reviewing Google Street View from 2011.  I did however note a possible structural issue with the street-facing gable feature that we will look at seeing if we can get that braced somehow.
End Quote of Autumn's email

I then sent out the following email, I had thought I had copied Gloria Devall but evidently I did not.  You can read what I said.  Essentially that the house was in dire need.  Maybe I am naive but I thought that the last sentence  of the email above meant that she and her office were going to do something.
I sent back the following:

Quote
Also sent May 8th
To: Martinage, Autumn, joann.tredennick, catherinedunc, Scott, Kimberly, McEachin, Joel

I went back to 2nd Street with Cathy.  That house porch is dangerous.  I cannot believe there has been less roof loss, the eaves on the front right hand and left hand side are awful. I do not remember it being that way, stuff must be falling. It is more than a “possible” structural issue.
Thanks for going over there I was going to send a message to Joel and Kim Scott, they are copied now.  Gloria DeVall said that code should be able to brace that upper porch, if anything is to be done it has to be done soon.  Those supports are bending as is what was left of the floor of the upper porch.  That house is in sincere trouble.
I am going to find out who owns the place, I know it was a police lady at one time and the house was no where near the shape then that it is now.
Chris Farley.

End quote.  You will note that I said I was copying Kim Scott, and I did - following what Gloria DeVall had said to me.

Now not only do I see that action to get the front braced was to be taken at the behest of PSOS, but, it is being said that there is a chain of emails between me and Kim Scott and that Chris Farley is responsible for the demolition.  My God the lies get worse. 
I did not notice any red hearts on the building, it was totally ignored by all and I brought it up out of concern.   I am just sick of the lies, but after all this to make me responsible for the demolition, it is beyond belief.
end quote

I need to ask for an emergency meeting of the DRC.  Neither SPAR or I deserve what has happened.  I do not know when the demolition was requested, I DID NOT know the house was coming down.  I was as shocked as anyone.  I went along 2nd street by accident, since I had been up to Publics and forgot to buy milk and decided to hit Winn Dixie on the way back - that is why I happened along the street.  I saw Kim Prior and wound down my window and asked if it fell.  I was amazed.

The reality is that code enforcement had the ability to brace the home.  Your email concerns "that house is in sincere trouble" to K. Scott and PSOS' request to HPC to request Code brace the gable triggered Scott to call for an emergency demolition as opposed to bracing the structure.  IMO it was a great big eff you from Scott to PSOS.  I think we can all agree that if Code Enforcement would mothball condemned homes to abate issues, as opposed to demolishing, they would be heroes of the hood.  Taxpayers would be far less burdened, and a neighborhood such as ours would not be desecrated. 

I appreciate that the understanding of a heart in Springfield means a house is under watch and care.  But just because a house lacks a heart or a lot of hearts doesn't mean it is not loved or cared about.  Looks like I'll be slap tagging a bunch of houses this summer with hearts. . . . .it's all good.

[sheclown]

At the end of it all is this:  any citizen, any organization, any group, ought to be able to contact their city and request help without fearing their request will be used as an excuse to do the very thing they hope to stop.

"Save the houses."  This is what we ALL whimper in our passionate helplessness.

[strider]

Ms Farley, not sure what in my post you are upset about.  From your post, I presented what happened correctly and without judgement. I do believe someone else may have stated something negative, but that was in a different thread.

The important thing here is that the facts get out and that the HPC and the Mayor's office listen as they are ultimately the only ones who can changed things quickly at MCCD.  Long term, we need to pursue changes to the ordinances to prevent the future abuse of power.

Autumn Martinage inspecting home prior to HPC meeting

I have listed the relevant sections of the Historic District and Landmark related ordinances at the bottom of the post.  I have included quotes from those sections as needed.

To begin with, I have been unable to find where the house at 129 East 2nd Street was ever a “formal track” house, meaning that there should be no argument that it must be handled under the current post mothballing ordinance version of the codes.

The Municipal Code Compliance Department must follow the same COA process as anyone else.  This was a change from the older version.  Today, a demolition must go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval.  Of course, as there must be, there is a provision to handle true emergencies.

A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection.

This obviously is for the cases where, as an example,  a fire has so badly damaged a building that it is more likely than not going to fall down on it's own and so truly poses a safety risk to those around it.  Common sense says that the city owes it to its residents to immediately remove the hazard.  There is also a protection to prevent the abuse of this.

However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action.

The fact that this says an application means that this after-the-fact COA still must go through the same process as any other demolition COA.  ie: Ms Kimberly Scott, the Chief of MCCD, has to justify the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street to the Historic Preservation Commission.   This brings us to the criteria the HPC will probably be directed to review this under by the Office of General Counsel (who will be looking at this to avoid potential lawsuits).

In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

Interesting as we already know that the HPC requested that Ms Scott have her department add additional bracing to stabilize the front porch on this house, which was by far the only part of the house that perhaps posed any public safety threat at all. This was done just 18 hours before the demolition contractor began tearing away at this historic house.

We also know that per the Office of General Counsel, once the HPC has denied permission to demolish a historic house, like they did at 1325 Laura Street, before Ms. Scott can decide to take the house as an emergency, some new event must occur. This would perhaps be a fire or a tree falling on the house that destablized the structure. In the case of 129 East 2nd Street, we have pictures dating back months with the house's condition unchanged.  We have e-mails from Chris Farley to both the Historical Department's staff and copied to Ms Scott where Ms. Farley claims that more material is coming off of the roof but Ms Autumn Martinage checking it herself and finding that the main house has seemed stable since 2011.

129 E 2nd Street appears to have lost some of its tar paper roof due to the elements (possibly from the storms last weekend) but it has not lost any more of the physical roof structure after reviewing Google Street View from 2011.  I did however note a possible structural issue with the street-facing gable feature that we will look at seeing if we can get that braced somehow.

separate porch roof in need of stabilization -- the basis of PSOS's request

We have pictures and statements from a very recent inspection done by contractors with restoration experience and city employees trained in historic matters saying the main house was stable.   We do have the possible issue with Ms. Scott bringing in her pals at Atlantic Engineering.  However, we have the results of the attempted demolition of 1647 Pearl Street and the personal testimony in how Atlantic Engineering handled another issue on East 9th Street to combat anything they might try to state.

Frankly, I do not see any way that this emergency demolition could be justified.  But of course, what will a denial at this point really mean?

I think the question is what should the penalties be when a department head like Ms Scott chooses to ignore the very laws she is charged with up-holding?  The penalties listed in the Historic Codes are really geared towards the owner or owners contractors rather than a rogue city department head.

a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner.

As you can see, this civil penalty could be pretty substantial, but how do you get a city employee to pay that even if it could be made to apply to her?  Also:

may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.

So, Ms. Scott could be made to replace the house.  Of course, in reality, any penalty would actually be paid by the city, meaning us taxpayers.

The best result of this would be a new department head, someone from outside the city preferably, or at least from outside the department, who would audit the policies and review the work by the department and do a thorough house cleaning.  The goal should be a Municipal Code Compliance Department that actually helps the citizens it serves.  Would it not be better for all of Jacksonville if a house that needed a simple and less expensive repair simply got that repair instead of years of taxpayer money being spent on a MCCD officer inspecting and doing paperwork and the eventual expensive demo that no one pays for?  Would it not be better for the neighbors if a house got mothballed if not repaired and looked good while it waited for a new owner or at least the ability of the current owner to fix it? That the MCCD officers actually worked with the residents of Jacksonville to achieve their proper goals?

Let's not let the loss of 129 East 2nd Street be for nothing.  Let's make it the symbol of positive change for all of Jacksonville.

abuse of power:  the loss of 129 E 2nd st

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:

Sec. 307.106. - Approval of changes to landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts; application procedures.

c) The City of Jacksonville and each independent agency of the City of Jacksonville or their agents or contractors shall be required to notify the Commission prior to planning and construction of improvement projects within an historic district or affecting a landmark or landmark site including, but not limited to, street improvements or repaving, sidewalks and curbs, drainage, water and sewer projects, street lighting, public utility poles, construction of utilities, building construction or demolition, tree trimming or removal, and other similar public improvements, except emergency actions that must be undertaken to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.


Sec. 307.111. - Enforcement; civil remedies.
b) In cases where a structure has been either demolished or relocated in violation of this Chapter, or where any building has to be demolished by the City pursuant to the property safety requirements of Chapter 518 and the owner of said building has received two or more notices from the City regarding neglect or failure to comply with Chapter 518 as they pertain to the structure, a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner. Additionally and separate from any civil penalty provision in this Section, there shall be no certificate of appropriateness issued for new development on the subject property for a period of one year from the date the City's judgment for civil penalties has become final, unless and only when such certificate of appropriateness is issued to correct and repair a partial demolition.
c)In addition to civil penalties, any person altering, demolishing or relocating all or any portion of property in violation of the provisions of this Chapter may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.


Sec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

[simms3]

Very sad.  The only hope for Springfield is intact houses at this point.  Infill is sort of out of the question, so the neighborhood needs all the structures it can keep.  It blows my mind that the city hasn't the brains to figure out any cheap solutions that are better for the local taxpayers and concerned citizens.

[chris farley]

Ionia will you back up your statement that my email saying the house was in trouble caused the demolition.   Psos has been saying all the time that the fact that they put it on the agenda (a closed one at that) caused the demolition in that code was getting back at them, which one are you going to choose?

[iloveionia]

The focus needs to remain that Kim Scott willfully brought down this house ignoring the requests for help (your email) and ours for stabilization via HPC request.  Not sure what you mean by a closed meeting. I emailed Autumn and requested that HPC request that Code stabilize. A request to request.

It is my opinion that the D and R concerns about 2nd AND our HPC request were EACH the cause of the houses demolition.  If we are a neighborhood that seeks to promote preservation we have to demand code to use chapter 518 to make repairs and stabilize as opposed to demolishing.

I used to try to work through K. Scott to try to encite preservation in Spfld. That failed. Each time it was a meeting at the Crossroads. After near 2 years of a truce, a stay of execution for our old homes, I had hoped the JHPC request from the Commissioners would have been answered with due respect. I was wrong. I own my responsibility for the loss of this home, but I am not alone. I will not be headed to the Crossroads again.   I know who I'll meet there.

Chpt 518 must be utilized to preserve our homes while maintaining safety. The code as written gives Scott carte blanche to do whatever she deems necessary with zero accountability.  This must change and she and her minions need to be removed.

To answer your question better: IMO the email was a plea of help for a structure that was dire need. Code does not help our homes but to demolish.  The response by code is understood with an email of concern, it's their only response: demolish.  As for me and the PSOS request to HPC? I bear my own burden for that. Code could be a hero for the hood if they would help preservation and safety concurrently and avoid demolition for abatement.

[Noone]

The focus needs to remain that Kim Scott willfully brought down this house ignoring the requests for help (your email) and ours for stabilization via HPC request.  Not sure what you mean by a closed meeting. I emailed Autumn and requested that HPC request that Code stabilize. A request to request.

It is my opinion that the D and R concerns about 2nd AND our HPC request were EACH the cause of the houses demolition.  If we are a neighborhood that seeks to promote preservation we have to demand code to use chapter 518 to make repairs and stabilize as opposed to demolishing.

I used to try to work through K. Scott to try to encite preservation in Spfld. That failed. Each time it was a meeting at the Crossroads. After near 2 years of a truce, a stay of execution for our old homes, I had hoped the JHPC request from the Commissioners would have been answered with due respect. I was wrong. I own my responsibility for the loss of this home, but I am not alone. I will not be headed to the Crossroads again.   I know who I'll meet there.

Chpt 518 must be utilized to preserve our homes while maintaining safety. The code as written gives Scott carte blanche to do whatever she deems necessary with zero accountability.  This must change and she and her minions need to be removed.

To answer your question better: IMO the email was a plea of help for a structure that was dire need. Code does not help our homes but to demolish.  The response by code is understood with an email of concern, it's their only response: demolish.  As for me and the PSOS request to HPC? I bear my own burden for that. Code could be a hero for the hood if they would help preservation and safety concurrently and avoid demolition for abatement.

WOW! Don't hold back. Make some NOISE! Good stuff.

This sounds very similar to the Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel Berkman Floating Dock compromise misrepresented by OGC to Waterways during the 2013 FIND grant application process which is our ad valorem property taxes that go before the Commissioners of FIND representing the east coast of the state of Florida appointed by the Governor.

Everyone still stoked about our BOLD (Building Our Local Divide) demolitions along Hogans Creek?

[strider]

One thing to remember is that when we had a MCCD chief that cared about how they did their job and tried to follow the law, MCCD would take a porch off and leave the rest of the structure.  It seems today that Ms. Scott sees an issue with a porch as an excuse to take the entire house.  This is not what it says to do in the ordinances.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that MCCD just circumvented the law and took a house in the Historic District of Springfield without just cause.

[Timkin]

Its scary and sickening that individuals within the City can flex their muscles , just because , and order a demolition.  And suffer no consequences.

It scares me as a Preservationist ,and as a tax-payer that this mindset is among the employees of the City.

The house is gone now and nothing can be done to bring it back.

Someone should be without a job post-haste.  There was NO reason to take down this house, other than power-playing.

I'm sick of this kind of mindset in Jacksonville.

[Noone]

The land locked PS4. Someone just waiting for a multi million million dollar payday. Palms Fish Camp. Palms Fish Camp. 8 years later next to a FIND project and a million dollar payday and they never even opened the door. So many examples and not just in Springfield.

Is there anyone ready to make some NOISE in our BOLD new DIA restricted zone?

Corrupt Council Area Reef 3 days out in Waterways at 9:30 4Th floor city hall. Lots of Abuse going around!

[Timkin]

At the end of it all is this:  any citizen, any organization, any group, ought to be able to contact their city and request help without fearing their request will be used as an excuse to do the very thing they hope to stop.

"Save the houses."  This is what we ALL whimper in our passionate helplessness.

You would think we could contact the City for help. Personally, I am afraid to, because I think if I do , the building myself and my group has worked on for years could get the same treatment as this house. 

The land locked PS4. Someone just waiting for a multi million million dollar payday. Palms Fish Camp. Palms Fish Camp. 8 years later next to a FIND project and a million dollar payday and they never even opened the door. So many examples and not just in Springfield.

Is there anyone ready to make some NOISE in our BOLD new DIA restricted zone?

Corrupt Council Area Reef 3 days out in Waterways at 9:30 4Th floor city hall. Lots of Abuse going around!

I am failing to understand this post or how it relates demolition of a house in Springfield.

[DDC]

At the end of it all is this:  any citizen, any organization, any group, ought to be able to contact their city and request help without fearing their request will be used as an excuse to do the very thing they hope to stop.

"Save the houses."  This is what we ALL whimper in our passionate helplessness.

You would think we could contact the City for help. Personally, I am afraid to, because I think if I do , the building myself and my group has worked on for years could get the same treatment as this house. 

The land locked PS4. Someone just waiting for a multi million million dollar payday. Palms Fish Camp. Palms Fish Camp. 8 years later next to a FIND project and a million dollar payday and they never even opened the door. So many examples and not just in Springfield.

Is there anyone ready to make some NOISE in our BOLD new DIA restricted zone?

Corrupt Council Area Reef 3 days out in Waterways at 9:30 4Th floor city hall. Lots of Abuse going around!

I am failing to understand this post or how it relates demolition of a house in Springfield.

Thanks for mentioning this because it left me some what in the dark.

PS4 I am assuming is Annie Lyttle,  Palms FishCamp was on Hecscher Dr and a popular place in the Northside for many years. Could they be victims of MCCD? Can You elaborate?

[strider]

129 East 2nd St -- in its rooming house days