Losing Springfield

[jaxbeachguy]

Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.

[thelakelander]

^I think you have to take projects on a case-by-case basis.  However, it doesn't appear code enforcement has been doing that.

[sheclown]

Doesn't matter. There are procedures to follow in a historic district and they are very clear cut

[Cheshire Cat]

Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.

At this point the conversation is about thwarting the legal processes required when the city accepted the Federal Funding.  If the funding is not being used correctly then we are looking at a violation of process and that has little to do with one's feeling about preservation and everything to do with Federal law when dispensing those funds is done improperly and for the wrong reasons.  Right now, that is the bottom line and the most pressing issue. 

[m74reeves]

^agreed...and it appears that the City has been bypassing established layers of review to ensure that we are handling money properly and treating our historic neighborhoods properly.

[sheclown]

Perhaps they could be fined $250 per day until they put the houses back together again

[strider]

Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.

RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation to the SHPO for each historic property proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recent structural analysis, a summary of alternatives considered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation plan, and the views of the public.

This sort of says it all.  The idea of using federal funding in areas like 32206 is to reduce the blight and to support the community by building it up, not tearing it down.   Reducing blight does not automatically mean tear old buildings down and, from the above, if you do, you need to at least have a plan of what to do to replace it.  By rehabbing buildings using a federal program, like was going to be done by the Planning Department with 253 East 2nd Street, you support the community and help build that market you were mentioning.

Ignoring federal guidelines to just demolish a historic building to spite a community or put money into someone's pocket, does quite the opposite.

An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District.

[Debbie Thompson]

And besides, jaxbeachguy, we are talking about an historic district where the city's own ordinances REQUIRES it to preserve these homes. Many so-called dilapidated homes are beautifully restored. You would not believe the before and after pictures for some of them.

[iloveionia]

Bottom line is there were and are rules to follow regarding the expenditure of NSP funds and their use with 50 year old homes that were blatantly ignored. No way is there any backing out of this one. The Feds will be notified and respond accordingly. For now the cat is out of the bag and this will shut things down.

Absolutely beyond my scope of understanding. I guess to work for the city you have to lack values and a conscience. I know, duh.

[jaxbeachguy]

To report a violation or request an inspection, please call our office at (904) 255-7859 or report the violation by calling C.A.R.E. at (904) 630-CITY.

I don't want to be a wiseguy, but has anyone called and reported these shacks?  If enough people complain, then action may be taken?  A coordinated effort?  Time is not on the side of these properties.   Is not occasional arson a factor as well?

[simms3]

It seems to me from reading the countless threads about these demolitions in Springfield that some of these houses are clearly not structural deficiencies and public dangers, but rather simple blight.  And while in my humble opinion some of the houses are not worth saving if there is nobody that wants to save them, they certainly aren't worth demo'ing until someone can come up with a subjectively better replacement.

But of those homes that absolutely do have historical and architectural value and are not public dangers, yet still find themselves victims of the bulldozer - TAKE THE ~$30k IT COSTS TO BULLDOZE AND CLEAR THE LOT AND APPLY A FRESH EXTERIOR COAT OF PAINT AND REPLACE A FEW WINDOWS, MAYBE RESOD THE FRONT/PUBLIC PART OF THE LAWN!!!  Then maybe someone will see potential and buy the house!  And if not, certainly the property values of surrounding homes could increase by $5-$20K+ over a block or so and increase the tax base!!

Where the hell is the pragmatism?  It costs money to demo and clear a lot.  With that money, instead of tearing down and creating a vacant lot, a home can be fixed up in a very material way, almost to the point of appearing to be occupied by middle class residents who have some degree of upkeep standards.

How are there so many roadmaps for gentrifying similar blighted streetcar neighborhoods yet nobody following any of these proven roadmaps in Jacksonville?  I know it takes a booming economy to see things on a grand scale across an entire city, but blighted neighborhoods have been totally turned around in 5-10 years time in similarly sized, "aging" industrial cities such as Milwaukee, Providence, Memphis, and Richmond!

[sheclown]

Although 253 East 2nd Street is pretty bad (one city agency wanting to rehab and one city agency wanting to demolish and both using the same federal pot of money), 129 East 2nd Street is bad in its own way as well, to recap:

1.) Ms. Brooks house was located in a historic district and was a contributing structure in that district
2.) Against her will, her house was demolished -- and she was not properly notified
3) A structural report done by code enforcement suggested that the only unsafe part of the house was the front porch
4) The historic preservation commission requested that code enforcement stabilize the front porch
5) The next day the entire structure was demolished
6) Code enforcement did not file a "section 106" review prior to taking action, nor did they do any of the following:

D. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with
the demolition of contributing buildings
within an historic district or
properties listed on or eligible fo
r listing on the National Register until
the procedures set forth in
Stipulation D. are completed.

Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
12
1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation
to the SHPO for each historic property
proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recen
t structural analysis,
a summary of alternatives consid
ered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation
plan, and the views of the public.
2. If the SHPO determines t hat the proposed
demolition is the most feasible alternative,
the SHPO shall develop a Standard
Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with
Stipulation VI.
3. If the SHPO determines that the St
andard Mitigation Meas
ures do not apply,
RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council
and initiate the consultatio
n process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)

[strider]

To be able to demolish a historic structure today, Code Compliance must either take the demolition to the HPC like everyone else or declare it an "extreme and imminent threat to public safety".   The purpose for that ordinance is to allow for those times when, as an example, a fire damages a building so badly that the remains of it are actually about to fall down.  There is then a real threat to the pubic and it must be taken down immediately.  In the case of both 129 and 253 East 2nd Street,  the process took a week at least if not months , a year or more if we believe the heads up we got over a year ago stating that we, the community, would have to be willing to lose houses like 129 and 253 East 2nd St if we wanted to benefit from NSP3 funding.   Neither house was a "extreme and imminent threat to public safety", not only based on common sense but the actual engineering reports Ms Scott had done prior to demolition.  Of course, NSP3 funding by design can not and should not be used for true emergency demolitions, but, as we can see, Ms Scott does not care about doing things right.

Now, the properties have liens for the demolitions on them.  $ 11,619.26 ($10,495.00 demo costs and $1,124.26 admin) on 129 E 2nd and $ 18, 203.60 ($16,995.00 demo costs and $1,208.60 admin) for 253 E 2nd ST.  One wonders what happens if those liens were to get paid?  Would Ms Scott have to pay back the federal government or would she just pocket it and have more money in her budget?  Is it even proper to lien for those demolitions when federal funding was used for those demolitions especially when these demolitions where done against the will of the owners and a majority of the residents of the community?

[sheclown]

If I were a historic preservation commissioner or a city councilman, I would request an independent audit of the city's NSP 1 and NSP 3 program BEFORE the federal government asks for one.

Be pro-active here.

[mbwright]

a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District.  So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.