Losing Springfield

[Cheshire Cat]

"We get it, you are angry at those who don't maintain their homes regardless of what their personal situation may be.  However the concern here goes beyond home maintenance and finds further focus in the procedures being used by the MCCD and Kim Scott to decided what properties need demo and when."

LOL not angry about this at all.  Don't live in the area so doesn't affect me.  Just the idea of maintenance makes more sense than suing someone and the continuous posting of  the crises from one house to another.  No sense to wait until a house is on the demolition list to all of a sudden start to maintain it.

Fair enough! 

In these older historic areas there are many reasons why homes of great age are not maintained, not the least of them being that some home owners are elderly and physically unable to keep them up and others are low income. Either situation often makes the continued maintenance of an older home very difficult both physically and financially.  Others cannot pay the taxes and lose their homes for that reason.  This is not at all unusual in very old neighborhoods.  Considering the quality of old construction, materials used and the overall beauty of many of these old homes not to mention the historic value of the community, even in cases of accidental or willful neglect it is still a great idea to save what is left of a lovely old community and breath new life into old structures. 

[sheclown]

Civil we feel attacked  hence the crisis mode.

[Redbaron616]

All historic districts do is remove rights and privileges of homeowners and transfer them to government. Never mind that the government did not build these houses nor maintain them. Individual homeowners did that. They are the owners of those houses. Nonetheless, people in a neighborhood suddenly decide that somehow THEY, via government, should decide what YOU do to YOUR house. So if you find yourself in a potential historic district and you don't absolutely love your house the way it is, you had better make your alterations quickly because government will soon be looking over your shoulder.

[sheclown]

Historic neighborhoods are not for everyone. They have special rules --

[civil42806]

All historic districts do is remove rights and privileges of homeowners and transfer them to government. Never mind that the government did not build these houses nor maintain them. Individual homeowners did that. They are the owners of those houses. Nonetheless, people in a neighborhood suddenly decide that somehow THEY, via government, should decide what YOU do to YOUR house. So if you find yourself in a potential historic district and you don't absolutely love your house the way it is, you had better make your alterations quickly because government will soon be looking over your shoulder.

oh please your a sock puppet for who?

[Demosthenes]

It doesn't give rights to government, it gives the citizens a path for protection of valuable historical artifacts. Shy of vigilantism, the only appropriate recourse is using the only proper policing authority, the government. Without these protections, history would be lost.

Now if you want to talk about HOA?! That shit is whack.

[bobcowman@yahoo.com]

That house was neglected and an eyesore.  In part, I passed on buying the beautiful and amazing home next door because of that unsightly, trash heap, framework of a shack that they so properly tore down.    When people buy a house like that with intent to restore it, they should be commended.  In this case, the opposite occurred.  That house had suffered such benign neglect since purchased that it went from being of some value to having only the lot value less the cost of tearing it down and moving the trash.  A reasonable person would realize that it was a lost cause, a leg with gangrene, and needed to be removed as an eyesore and detriment to the community.  I am very glad to see some progress being made in respect to these kinds of properties in Springfield and also hope that soon the City will put the extraordinary amount of empty lots and houses on their books for sale so that others can actually do something with them to reconstitute the neighborhood.  It is wrong for the City to not put those on the market.

[sheclown]

Next door on all sides are empty lots unless you are talking about 129 east 2nd.

Many houses which are now beautifully restored (including the amazing house you were interested in) were also ugly ducklings waiting their turn

[sheclown]

In 1985 there was one empty lot on east 2nd from Main St to Clark. One.

[sheclown]

read how Councilman Lumb is rescuing us once again:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18749.msg333740/topicseen.html#new

[vicupstate]

Those vacant lots will be vacant a LONG time, if the experience of most cities, including Jax, is a guide.  LaVilla, Brooklyn and the Northbank are just the LOCAL examples of that.  Generally it is far cheaper to fix up a structurally sound but distressed property, than build from the ground up brand new.

Having buildings that can be restored allows more organic growth to naturally occur, because more people have the budget to do a rehab than build from the ground up.  That's one reason why there is such a vast desert of vacant land in the urban core of Jax. 

Charleston and Savannah both had many distressed properties that are grand dames today.  They only survived because they were protected and treasured by their communities. 

As far as 'standing to sue' would the Jax Historical Society have standing?  The Historic Charleston Foundation is frequently involved in litigation of that nature. 

[sheclown]

I received this minutes ago:

Gloria:

Immediately below is my e-mail to the administration. Please feel free to share it with your compatriots in SOS and elsewhere.

Robin Lumb
------------------------
Mr. Ashanta-Barker & Ms. Scott:

Can you provide me with a list of those properties that have been scheduled for demolition, or that might be scheduled for demolition, inside either of the city’s two Historic Districts?

As for those buildings that are slated for demolition, I respectfully ask that you postpone such action until we can come to an agreement on how the demolition process should be handled going forward.

Given the limited and shrinking stock of architecturally significant structures in our city I believe we should use every available tool at our disposal to avoid demolition. For example, it’s my understanding that Municipal Code Compliance has the authority and latitude to mitigate the adverse conditions affecting a historic structure, i.e., providing structural support for a sagging porch instead of tearing down an entire building, but that such options are almost never pursued.

An example of this short-sighted policy of preferring demolition over stabilization occurred when a contributing structure at 129 East 2nd Street was torn down several weeks ago. In that particular case, the demolition occurred the day following a meeting of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission and despite the fact that MCC staff who attended the meeting were aware that the JHPC had voted to recommend stabilization rather than demolition.

I’m planning to introduce legislation to address the negative effects that our current system of rolling fines has on historic preservation. The problem with the present system is that the accumulated fines are so large (227 properties in Springfield have a combined $49 million in fines!) that there is little or no financial incentive to bring a property into compliance. Not only are property owners unable to obtain the refinancing necessary to make repairs, even if financing were available the accumulated fines - $200K+ on average - mean that most property owners will remain under water even after renovations have been completed.

Without going into great detail, my legislation would create a process for structured workouts; one that would waive all or most of the accumulated fines for those owners who present an acceptable plan for bringing their properties into compliance and who are willing to commit to a specific timetable. However, until such time as I can bring the legislation forward, I believe that we should develop protocols that clearly spell out how historic properties are to be treated and the steps the city should take to avoid demolition.

The sin qua non of historic preservation is to stop tearing down the city’s dwindling stock of contributing structures. Given this predicate understanding demolition should be the last resort.

Sincerely,

Robin Lumb
Jacksonville City Council
Group 5 At Large

[avs]

As far as 'standing to sue' would the Jax Historical Society have standing?  The Historic Charleston Foundation is frequently involved in litigation of that nature.

I was wondering that this morning too.  Why doesn't the Historical Society get involved?  In other cities they are greatly involved in issues like this...? 

[fsujax]

Thank God. Where is our Councilman on these issues?

[avs]

Lumb should also demand to know where the funds came from for those two recent Springfield demolitions...