Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[Noone]

The City of Jacksonville's 2011-2012 CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report) to HUD is available on the City of Jacksonville's website and on Page 42, located within Section IV, HOME Narrative Statements contains a NSP Summary (FY 2011/2012) that states:

Finally, in an effort to effectively address blight and foreclosure, NSP has contracted with Code Enforcement to demolish unsightly structures. For the fiscal year, 23 unsafe and ill-used homes were demolished.

I asked three questions regarding this statement:
1. Can you please provide me with the addresses of the 23 homes demolished?
2. Can you please explain how demolishing structures addresses foreclosure?
3. Can you please explain what is meant by an "ill-used" structure?

Attached is the email string regarding my questions and the answers from the City.  I forwarded the list of 23 properties to the State Historic Preservation Office in Talahassee and asked if the 20 properties that were over 50 years old had Section 106 reviews performed.  The SHPO's answer was NO.  The total current demolition liens against these 20 properties comes to a total of $79,831.38!   

This MUST be refunded to HUD.  This my dear Jacksonville friends....is only the very TIP of the iceburg!!

Very good research and work. National  news story and like you said the tip of the iceberg.
Palms Fish Camp and a million bucks and you never even open the door.
So much more! Have a surplus waterfront JEA house to sell.
The crushing of the Public Trust.

[sheclown]

After a large meeting last Friday, I believe the city now understands that section 106 reviews will need to be done on all properties 50 years or older whether they are in a recognized historic district or not.

This is very good news for the urban core.

If we know of properties in the urban core which are not landmarked or in the historic district but have significance, we need to document this and share this information with Joel McEachin to place in his files.

Let's make sure we don't lose what we have left of our historic structures in the urban core.

[strider]

While it is great that they now know about the laws they were supposed to be following all along, was it really a case that they just didn't know?  How can that be when we hear how wonderful Kimberly Scott does her job?  She has a masters degree after all.  Is she corrupt or just incompetent?  What about Elaine Spenser?  While MCC was given one million, Elaine Spenser's department was given control of 26 Million from NSP1 alone.  Did she not know about this?  Isn't she supposed to monitor what MCC did with the million dollars that went through her department?

The Mayor apparently has put a bunch of either corrupt or incompetent people in control of the millions intended to help, not harm, the urban core areas and yet do we hear that they are being replaced by folk who can do better?  No, we hear that some of them (Ms Scott and Mr. Prado for starters) are going to be promoted.  Sadly, that says a lot about our Mayor.

[JaxUnicorn]

After a large meeting last Friday, I believe the city now understands that section 106 reviews will need to be done on all properties 50 years or older whether they are in a recognized historic district or not.

This is very good news for the urban core.

Truth be told, they should have ALREADY understood the requirement.  But what we now know is that city officials were told IN PERSON BY HUD OFFICIALS what is required when utilizing federal funds.  There is no more "we didn't know" excuse.

[thelakelander]

It appears Jax now owes HUD $705k:

Jacksonville owes the federal government $160,000 for breaking rules about demolishing old houses — and could owe another $545,000 if it doesn't fix problems involving building repairs, a federal report says.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development outlined those problems last month, after a HUD team spent a week checking how well the city lives up to requirements set for using federal grants.

The answer, says the report, is not great.

"Basically every file reviewed had compliance issues," said the report from HUD's Jacksonville field office, adding: "it is clear that the city of Jacksonville currently lacks the capacity to ensure compliance."

full article: http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-06-11/story/hud-jacksonville-owes-feds-160000-rules-violations-when-demolishing#cxrecs_s

[strider]

Actually, when you read the report, it could be higher than the 705K.  In one case, houses were built too close to a hazardous site.  If the site issues can not be mitigated, the funds will have to be paid back as well.  In another case, funds intended to be used for owner occupied homes seem to have been used to help finance rentals.

In addition, the reports states that it was not an exhaustive audit.  We know that there are an addition 164 demolitions out there that were not handled properly and HUD can indeed ask for those funds back as well. Based on this report, just imagine how much more they could find if they choose too.

While the Mayors office made a point that some of the issues dated back to 2009 before this administration, there are constants to be found.  For the Demolition and Clearance issues, the big constant was Ms. Kimberly Scott, who was just promoted by the Mayor while City Council sang her phrases. Perhaps they should have done some research first.