Live Blogging: Mayor Brown in Springfield

[strider]

Over on East 6th St., a contractor/ developer gutted a house, changed all the interior framing, removed the windows, doors and siding.  They took the house to about the same condition as the two that were demolished by Ms Scott recently.  In this case, they did the work without the proper COA's so the project is in limbo while that is sorted out.  But it can be used to illustrate that the two houses most recently taken by Ms Scott could have been restored.  If a contractor can start with a house in decent shape and make it need everything these two demolished houses needed and still believe they could make money doing it, there is no excuse to call any house in Springfield  "beyond revitalization".

There is some other reason the Michael Trautman's, the Meeks and others support these demolitions.  They are just afraid to say it.

[tufsu1]

Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses

sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer

Look at The Cat's response.  He heard what I heard.

yes...I had posted my response before finishing it...if you go back to Post 22, you can see that I revised it...but it was within minutes of the original post.

I'm sorry that you have an ax to grind here...I was standing right behind Mr. Trautman and had no idea who he is/was....what was clear at the meeting is that there is a big divide in Springfield regarding the issue of demolitions.

Seems to me the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle...for example, I live in a complex downtown held up as one of the better urban development projects built in Jacksonville....but clearly other structures were on the site prior to 2000.

[JaxUnicorn]

Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses

sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer

Look at The Cat's response.  He heard what I heard.

yes...I had posted my response before finishing it...if you go back to Post 22, you can see that I revised it...but it was within minutes of the original post.

I'm sorry that you have an ax to grind here...I was standing right behind Mr. Trautman and had no idea who he is/was....what was clear at the meeting is that there is a big divide in Springfield regarding the issue of demolitions.

Seems to me the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle...for example, I live in a complex downtown held up as one of the better urban development projects built in Jacksonville....but clearly other structures were on the site prior to 2000.

I'm confused...what does your statement (bolded above) mean?  What are you trying to say?

[thelakelander]

Unfortunately, for every one of the development tufsu1 describes, downtown Jacksonville probably has 20-30 blocks of utter failure (surface parking & vacant weed filled lots).  There is a point in time, where demolition of certain structures may make sense. However, let's not kid ourselves.  That's not happening in Springfield or Downtown.

[strider]

Let's see tufsu1.  Sheclown states that Mr Trautman asks for demolitions (which he did) you try to say otherwise, she quotes you and then you go back and modify your post and then give Sheclown a hard time about what she said .  And I have an ax to grind?  Sorry, me thinks you have that a bit backwards.

I think  that while it may become necessary to demolish a designated and protected historic structure at times, due to actually being an "extreme and imminent threat to public safety", that is not why the last few houses have gone down.  That is not why the vast majority of the 535 houses lost since Springfield got its historic designation were demolished. The main reasons have been nothing but social reasons. They look bad, criminals stay in them, they were once used as rooming houses, the owners didn't fix them up fast enough, if we don't use that NSP funding for demolitions, we will lose it, lot's of demolitions makes me look better to the big bosses, the demolition contractors won't give me those nice Christmas presents if I don't give them more big houses to tear down, I want a bigger yard, I need the lot for my new pool.... it could be one or two of the above or all of them.  In any case, few were so bad that they had to come down because they truly were a threat to public safety.  When the ordinance charges the entire city with protecting it's historic buildings and it elects to tear them down instead, is it not breaking the law just the same as the guy who robs your car in the middle of the night? The big difference is it is only you and the insurance company who pays for those lost CD's, all taxpayers get to foot the bill when Kimberly Scott illegally tears down a house and the city settles those lawsuits. 

[JaxUnicorn]

^^^^ +1000 strider!

[Debbie Thompson]

Regarding the photos

We were asked at the beginning of the meeting -- by the mayor-- to request permission before taking photos -- especially of people who are in the enforcement biz.

again, not quite what I heard...I didn't hear anything about people in the "enforcement biz"...I belive the Mayor used the term "city staff", which applied to the 15-20 city staffers in attendance not involved in code enforcement

He said enforcement.  It may have been enforcement duties, not biz, but yes, he asked us not to take pictures without asking first, "especially of people with enforcement duties." 

[Debbie Thompson]

Dear Mayor Brown, thank you for coming to Springfield last week.   I was surprised to hear your response to Kim Pryor's question at the meeting.  Springfield is a National Historic District.  As such, and per COJ Ordinance 307, the City of Jacksonville has an obligation to preserve our historic homes.  By law, they are to use the least intrusive means to secure/stabilize the house.

When someone complains about the "ugly" house next door possibly affecting their property values, COJ's immediate response should be, "You are living in/chose to buy in/chose to invest in an historic district.  As such, the homes there are protected.  One must perform due diligence when choosing to live in/invest in an historic district, because it is the City's responsibility to protect those homes."

If one has a problem with yet-to-be-rehabbed historic homes, they should perhaps rethink an "emerging" historic district such as Springfield as their neighborhood.  COJ should not step in and destroy someone else's property to appease a squeaky wheel who should have done some legwork about historic districts before they purchased or invested in one.   To those who say "rehab of that house is not economically feasible," I say, "Well, maybe not to YOU it's not.  That doesn't mean someone else won't come along to love that house again."

Nor have the recent demolitions Kim Pryor referred to been a matter of public safety.  Oh, I know Kim Scott and the rest of MCCD love to throw that around.  But the fact is both of the houses demolished recently in Springfield, and indeed many in the past, were structurally sound.  And Springfield is a what?  A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.  And the homes are to be protected.

On the day it was demolished as an "emergency," 253 E. 2nd Street had a contract on it for approximately $69,000 that was scheduled to close in a week.  Metro North had grant funds to beautifully restore that home.   You know their track record, and know it would have been done.  However, it was already structurally sound because the earlier owner had obtained a loan to restore it.  The house had been completely re-structured inside, new roof material, new trusses. Then, unfortunately, he was unable to continue with the rehab.  The porch needed attention.  But structurally, the house was all new inside.  We have pictures.  There was no public safety issue that could not have been remediated timely with this house.  Again, rehab was set to start shortly.   It's my understanding when Kim Scott was called and told the house was scheduled to close the next week and rehab to begin, her response was along the lines of, "I don't care, it's coming down."  Really?  Is that how you want MCCD to be run?  Would you not prefer a code compliance department that helps people and works to preserve homes, any homes, if possible?   The greenest home is one that is already built, after all.  And in Springfield, they are located in a NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT and as such are to be protected.

Kim Pryor said she had some ideas to share with you, and would like to meet with you.  You said you welcomed her ideas. I trust you will keep your promise to meet with her.  There are other ways besides the destruction of our city's history, already in the ordinances and within the power of COJ, to protect both our people and our historic homes. 

Sincerely,
Debbie Thompson

[Cheshire Cat]

Dear Mayor Brown, thank you for coming to Springfield last week.   I was surprised to hear your response to Kim Pryor's question at the meeting.  Springfield is a National Historic District.  As such, and per COJ Ordinance 307, the City of Jacksonville has an obligation to preserve our historic homes.  By law, they are to use the least intrusive means to secure/stabilize the house.

When someone complains about the "ugly" house next door possibly affecting their property values, COJ's immediate response should be, "You are living in/chose to buy in/chose to invest in an historic district.  As such, the homes there are protected.  One must perform due diligence when choosing to live in/invest in an historic district, because it is the City's responsibility to protect those homes."

If one has a problem with yet-to-be-rehabbed historic homes, they should perhaps rethink an "emerging" historic district such as Springfield as their neighborhood.  COJ should not step in and destroy someone else's property to appease a squeaky wheel who should have done some legwork about historic districts before they purchased or invested in one.   To those who say "rehab of that house is not economically feasible," I say, "Well, maybe not to YOU it's not.  That doesn't mean someone else won't come along to love that house again."

Nor have the recent demolitions Kim Pryor referred to been a matter of public safety.  Oh, I know Kim Scott and the rest of MCCD love to throw that around.  But the fact is both of the houses demolished recently in Springfield, and indeed many in the past, were structurally sound.  And Springfield is a what?  A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.  And the homes are to be protected.

On the day it was demolished as an "emergency," 253 E. 2nd Street had a contract on it for approximately $69,000 that was scheduled to close in a week.  Metro North had grant funds to beautifully restore that home.   You know their track record, and know it would have been done.  However, it was already structurally sound because the earlier owner had obtained a loan to restore it.  The house had been completely re-structured inside, new roof material, new trusses. Then, unfortunately, he was unable to continue with the rehab.  The porch needed attention.  But structurally, the house was all new inside.  We have pictures.  There was no public safety issue that could not have been remediated timely with this house.  Again, rehab was set to start shortly.   It's my understanding when Kim Scott was called and told the house was scheduled to close the next week and rehab to begin, her response was along the lines of, "I don't care, it's coming down."  Really?  Is that how you want MCCD to be run?  Would you not prefer a code compliance department that helps people and works to preserve homes, any homes, if possible?   The greenest home is one that is already built, after all.  And in Springfield, they are located in a NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT and as such are to be protected.

Kim Pryor said she had some ideas to share with you, and would like to meet with you.  You said you welcomed her ideas. I trust you will keep your promise to meet with her.  There are other ways besides the destruction of our city's history, already in the ordinances and within the power of COJ, to protect both our people and our historic homes. 

Sincerely,
Debbie Thompson

Go Debbie, go Debbie.  Good letter!