Ten Historic Springfield Demolitions

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Yes its good to tell people that contribute to revitalization more than most to leave because they dont agree with you.. Thats the inclusive and diverse spirit! I think Debbie Thompson should go live in Lackawanna or Durkeeville where people are too poor to fix up homes and make them presentable. Have fun!

advocating demolition is contributing to revitalization?

[John P]

what are you demolishing? a burned out rooming house with structural problems that homeless people live in and the slumlord owner wont improve or a boarded up vacant house that is properly kept up by the owner? Yes to the first no to the second! Those are 2 different things people!

[sheclown]

what are you demolishing? a burned out rooming house with structural problems that homeless people live in and the slumlord owner wont improve or a boarded up vacant house that is properly kept up by the owner? Yes to the first no to the second! Those are 2 different things people!

Actually, no.  They are the same.  A protected class of structures called a historic district.

[Debbie Thompson]

Well, since clearly John P, Big Nugget and Apache think the way to make our historic district better is to get rid of all the remaining historic fabric, and get rid of all those pesky poor people, I think I have nothing else to say to them.

While I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and of course I don't think they should move, I think they don't get it.  I still think they would be happier in the suburbs where all the houses are the same age and same price, and they could rest assured everyone around them makes the same money as them.  But since they appear to want the historic district to become that instead, I have nothing left to add.  I've been there, done that, didn't like that.   

With no hard feelings, I shall proceed to ignore their posts, since I can't change their minds, and they clearly are not going to change mine.  :-)   I suggest others do the same.

Who wants to talk preservation?

[sheclown]

I'd love some photos of what Carmen Street looked like when there were houses there.  I remember a few being left back in 2000.  They were one story bungalows, small.

Carmen, like Clark, Walnut Court, Hubbard Terrace, are forgotten little pockets of bungalows.

[strider]

I just want to know why it seems acceptable for the city to disobey its own laws?  Our ORDINANCES REQUIRE protection and the least intrusive means of abatement.  Demolition is NOT they way to abate in a historic district.

It's semantics I guess, but the city is clearly not Breaking the law. If it were, as I've mentioned prior, this forum has a couple capable attorneys that could/would take up the case.

m74reeves posted the ordinance earlier in this thread. It's clearly ambiguous. Paraphrasing, in "emergency" situations it gives the city or MCCD the requirement to brace/fix/repair UNLESS they determine that such action is useless, which is what they have been determining.

Continuing to state that they are breaking the law will get you no where, clearly. MCCD is comfortable, evidenced by Ms. Scott's reported smugness, that they are indeed within the law.

In my opinion, the only way you are going to change this is apply public pressure to Ms. Scott to change her mind or apply public pressure to the Mayor to replace her with someone of a mind toward preservation.

Here's part of 307:

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.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 17; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-408-E, § 2)

And yes, Ms Scott did break the law.  While it is very true that she can interpret certain laws as she see fit, there are indeed limits.  Section 307 sets those limits within the Historic districts.  Ms Scott has elected to ignore those limits and that is good for her, unless she gets called on it.  She won't be unless we speak up.  So while you  might be right that the law issues won't put her in jail or immediately remove her from her position, they do put the city of Jacksonville, meaning us tax payers by the way, in the path of a semi called liability.  The lawsuits are not a maybe, they are a given.  Look up the last ones - the liability exposure to the city set by the OGC was up to $ 200,000 dollars each I believe.  We are closing libraries and we allow Ms Scott to put us in that kind of liability position?  For what? So she can continue to feed her ego?  I keep hoping this city is better than that.

Mothballing these two houses could have been a couple of hundred grand cheaper than demolishing them.   That is not emotional, that is simple fact.

[sheclown]

Save the houses

Oh and save the commercial structures, too

& the brick streets.

[chris farley]

Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "

Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985.  I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it.  (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up.  You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey.  That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month.  I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it.  When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there.  Then we find out they are ones that were moved.  12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math.  We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many.  When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be  closed.  I challenge you go get the list.  I challenge you to read the files as I have.  You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street.  That does not prove anything.  There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated.  When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative.  So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong.  I believe the onus is on you.  I have read every file that is available and have done about  15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey.  What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years.  The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers.    The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted,  bothered me also.  There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson.  Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only  city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield.  We still have a treasure here.  If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.

[strider]

Strider, doesn't the "emergency" section of that ordinance also state
"When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted."

Actually, it says this:

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.

Remember that while section 518 governs MCC, Section 307 must also be included as it governs how historic properties are handled.

Wouldn't you agree that is the loophole she is using? And therefore is not breaking the law. She is claiming they are emergencies, that temporary measures will not be adequate and getting an engineering firm (some intimate a crooked firm) to back her up, demo'ing the house and filing for the COA after. As the language states she can do?

Yes, she has circumvented the normal and standard procedures by calling these demolitions emergencies. She willfully set out to do this.  The question then comes down to this.  Can she justify calling these two houses an "extreme and imminent public safety hazard"?  We say no.  We know that per the Office of General Counsel has stated that a house, like a house on Laura St that has been discussed, that is denied a demolition by the HPC can;t be taken by an emergency order unless something radically changes from the time that demolition was denied to the time it is declared an emergency.  There are many pictures showing that no changes occurred on either of these two houses.  We also can look at the definitions of Extreme and Imminent to support the call that these houses should not have been taken by emergency order.  Even the process used by the MCC and past performance of how long it took to take true emergencies supports that they were not emergency demolitions.  If one uses the emergency demolition powers incorrectly and circumvents the correct and legal proceedings to get the demolition approval of a historic house, is that not breaking the law? 

You also called it a loophole, but read the ordinance again.  Not only does it have to meet the definition of "Extreme and Imminent" it also has to be justified to the Historic Preservation Commission. The ordinance states she must submit an COA APPLICATION.  This is an important point as it is the single check and balance available to insure that, like many times in the past, emergency demolitions are not abused.  The emergency demolition must be found to be valid or?  OK, that is the question.  In a normal business, if an employee took down a house illegally and potentially cost the company a couple of hundred grand, they would be out of a job so fast their head would spin.  Who knows what this city will do.

I know more about this than I can post here.  Suffice it to say that no, she can not truly justify either demolition.  The evidence is very much against her.

The HPC will be hearing the appeal of the administratively approved COA for 129 E 2nd St next month.  And there are definitive procedures in place as to how a demotion is to be approved so next months meeting will be interesting. And costly.  PSOS believes so much in this that the check written for this appeal was $ 610.00.

We are also awaiting notification on the status of the COA application for the 253 E 2nd St demolition.  A decision will be made whether to appeal that one or not.  We may just let the courts rule on that one.

[JaxUnicorn]

Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "

Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985.  I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it.  (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up.  You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey.  That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month.  I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it.  When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there.  Then we find out they are ones that were moved.  12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math.  We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many.  When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be  closed.  I challenge you go get the list.  I challenge you to read the files as I have.  You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street.  That does not prove anything.  There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated.  When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative.  So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong.  I believe the onus is on you.  I have read every file that is available and have done about  15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey.  What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years.  The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers.    The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted,  bothered me also.  There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson.  Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only  city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield.  We still have a treasure here.  If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.

Chris, thank you for the additional information.  You have a great wealth of knowledge of our district and I personally would like to explore your files when time permits.  The SHEC website is a fantastic resource.  It is sad that the City's Historic Planning Department cannot provide the exact numbers of lost structures...you'd think they would want to keep track of that information.

Perhaps strider's percentage is not quite correct.  The issue here is that we are still losing historic housing stock at the hand of the City of Jacksonville which is charged with protecting the structures, not destroying them.  If the preservationists among us band together, we can make a difference!!   

[sheclown]

whatever.

Joel McEachin, head of the historic planning department said so and said so in a SPAR roundtable meeting. 

So tired of having this same conversation.

http://myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1586

[strider]

First, I did not post that, Sheclown did.

Second, you are sometimes a source for some good history but you have a bad habit of only stating what supports what you or whomever you want to follow this week wants to be true.

I personally have walked several of the streets and counted houses and empty lots,  You need to remember that when you move a house from one place and put in on an empty lot, you may be filling an empty lot but creating an empty one somewhere else.  And if you count that house and count the empty lot, it cancels out the whole moving the house thing.   One street gains, the other loses.  If a house was torn down, the lot sat empty for a time and then a new house was built on it, then hey,  we still lost an historic house.   Yes some houses were lost because they were too badly damaged by arson and just plain fire, but many more were taken for social reasons and you know it.  You just keep trying to defend a few at the forefront of the demolitions for some reason and you should not be if you truly believe in preservation.

The 533 number came from Joel McEachin, head of the department.  The streets I have done indicate he is most likely correct.  And of course, we get to add two more to that number so it is 535 houses gone.  Since the RUDAC study in 1985.  And YES, look at the map. There was only one empty lot on East 2nd street in 1985.  One.  How many are there today?  Yes it is not easy to come up with accurate numbers, it takes time.  But we will have them eventually and as much as I would prefer you to be right, sadly you won't be.

I find it odd that someone who cries that she is indeed for preservation and likes to post how much she has done for preservation is always trying so hard to make it seem like there is no need for preservation.  It is the same rhetoric we heard from Bill Huff. Just like in the past.  Not to worry, all is OK.  We are for preservation, we really are.  Then we found the e-mails with SPAR complaining that Joel was trying too hard to PREVENT demolitions. Sorry, Chris, your opinion on this matter lacks a bit of credibility.

Strider quote
"Bill, we've lost 1/3 of the housing stock. "

Absolutely not true. I challenge you to get a list of demolitions that planning has shown or rather "counted" as gone since 1985.  I asked for a list, I did get one, it had the number 533 written in the margin but actually less than 300 names on it.  (either 229 or 299, I could dig out the list again it is with SHEC papers, but I am sure you can get a copy). When I started to crosscheck with the survey so many on that list were non contributing I gave up.  You yourself said in another post said we had lost an average of one per month since the survey.  That is 28 years which would mean a total of 336 (only 200 fewer than the fictitious figure). The figures just do not jive and I know in the 13 years I have been here there has not been one a month.  I was going to try and cross check, but it would take ages and is not worth it.  When doing SHEC, as stated before, we found houses on corners with multiple addresses, but the most difficult to trace was when a house showed up on a street and it was not supposed to be there.  Then we find out they are ones that were moved.  12th street houses are on Walnut, Laura, Silver and 9th that I know of - they would be counted as gone in your math.  We certainly have not lost them at the rate of 1 a month, but I do believe we have lost between circa 200 - 250 of contributing, still too many.  When the COAs were being used to come up with a figure, it included non contributing (you still need a COA) structures, garages sheds, in fact when I came into the neighborhood in 2000 the city was requiring that some carriage houses had to go, before a house could be  closed.  I challenge you go get the list.  I challenge you to read the files as I have.  You also wrote that in 1985 there was only one empty lot on east second street.  That does not prove anything.  There were 43 listed addresses for the said east second in 1985, but I know two for sure were moved, one to Hubbard, and one to Laura, but the Duncan Fletcher house on the corner of Hubbard and 2nd, now 1203 Hubbard had no fewer that 3 maybe 4 addresses on Second and all were contained in that 43 as stated.  When I complained to planning that the list was not correct, I was told that it was - I think the adjective used was tentative.  So unless you can come up with addresses and where those houses were, stop using that figure - unless of course you get the list and prove me wrong.  I believe the onus is on you.  I have read every file that is available and have done about  15,000 scans. We have pored over those files. So much has changed since the survey.  What did really did bother me were the houses lost between 1985 and ratification of the designation, in 1992 I believe, about 7 years.  The ones immediately behind Main were the worst sufferers.    The ones left off the survey, which I felt deserved to be counted,  bothered me also.  There used to be 4 lovely little houses in the alley just north of the 300 block of 6th East, I watched them burn one by one - arson.  Sadly these were ignored in the survey, not even a photograph taken only  city foot prints remain. I am sure their "demolitions" are part of that list.
We need to concentrate on protecting what we have, stop pointing fingers at every city agency and be more upbeat about Springfield.  We still have a treasure here.  If I could post photos hereon, I would post a lovely shot of houses moving down Main Street being moved in order to be saved. The Bethel Rectory moved 4 times.

[JaxUnicorn]

Strider, doesn't the "emergency" section of that ordinance also state "When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted."

Wouldn't you agree that is the loophole she is using? And therefore is not breaking the law. She is claiming they are emergencies, that temporary measures will not be adequate and getting an engineering firm (some intimate a crooked firm) to back her up, demo'ing the house and filing for the COA after. As the language states she can do?

Apache, although I've not seen it with my own eyes, last night a reliable source read the engineering report to me and for both houses the report stated to either brace or demolish.  I interpret that as saying if braced, the structure would be stabilized.  This, in my non-lawyer opinion, should have been the option chosen to comply with the section of the Ordinance that states

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.

MCCD chose Option B and demolished both structures even though their own engineering company said they could be stabilized.

[BigNugget]

When all else fails construct the worst strawman possible. We hate poor people.  Thats it... It has nothing to do with income. It's about personal responsibility, self respect, respect for others and taking just the smallest amount of pride in the property that you own or inhabit.  Now there is a strong correlation between the lack of personal responsibility and poverty.  Not many go-getters that get shit done are also poor. But that is another discussion. 

So again your finger is pointed toward me and people that think like me and not at the people that are making the mess.  I'll say it once again. I am not the problem the people that don't act in a responsible manner and take care of their property and let it degrade to the point that the city has to intervene are the problem.  That isn't a race position. That isn't a rich vs poor position (I'm middle class BTW) it is simply a judgement based on their personal behavior.

If you bought property and don't maintain it - you are irresponsible. If you bought property and didn't make the payments and it got foreclosed on - you are irresponsible.

I love the urban setting. I love historic buildings. I like the SRG historic knockoffs. I like the urban character and diversity of the people that live here.  I don't want to look at run down and or burned out shitboxes that have no hope of restoration or reuse because they are a repellent to the responsible decent people that I hope decide to move a business here or move their family here.

Well, since clearly John P, Big Nugget and Apache think the way to make our historic district better is to get rid of all the remaining historic fabric, and get rid of all those pesky poor people, I think I have nothing else to say to them.

While I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and of course I don't think they should move, I think they don't get it.  I still think they would be happier in the suburbs where all the houses are the same age and same price, and they could rest assured everyone around them makes the same money as them.  But since they appear to want the historic district to become that instead, I have nothing left to add.  I've been there, done that, didn't like that.   

With no hard feelings, I shall proceed to ignore their posts, since I can't change their minds, and they clearly are not going to change mine.  :-)   I suggest others do the same.

Who wants to talk preservation?

[I-10east]

I'm always portrayed as being anti-urban, but what about the Commander Apts? I think that they should NOT be razed, and renovated, similar like Tower Place was. I don't want it torn down for that rephasing project. Obviously the Argyle residents have no problem with the Commander. It seems like no one is with me on this thing. Silly me, the Dancy Terrace Mansions are way more valuable than the Commander, what was I thinking?

So I guess for a change, I'm a 'save everything urban hippie' and if you want the Commander torn down, you're a suburban-minded rich person who don't understand urban fabric.