Demolition Builds Better Neighbors Ordiance

[whislert]

Just wanted to make a few more points about the Demolitions Build Better Neighbors Ordinance. First it's title is a lie. It will provide historic structures only an additional 60 days of protection before they too can be demolished, though yes, a mothball procedure will be available to responsive homeowners in recognized historic districts. But then, if owners were responsive to begin with, they most likely wouldn't be in danger of demolition so, truth be told, many abandoned historic structures will be demolished.

Second, this bill eliminates administrative appeal of a Code Enforcement Officer's determination that a house is unsound. This determination is made from exterior view only, as these government agents are prohibited from trespassing on private property. Currently, their decision can be appealed first to the MCCD Appeals Board and then to the Special Masters Court. The appeal costs $10 and about half of appeals find in favor of homeowners. With a 50% loss record, do we really want to eliminate this layer of restraint on bureaucratic over-reach when it comes to losing a home? One will still be able to go to court but that won't be $10.

Third, it is my understanding that Florida case law has prohibited demolition of structures due to their blighting influence, i.e., the kind of activity that surrounds vacant homes and which is the concern of the Blight Committee. This case law was decided in favor of a predominantly African American community in danger of eradication as a solution to the blighting influence of the entire community on adjacent white neighborhoods. But here in JAX, the Code section being amended is solely concerned with demolition of unsafe - i.e., unsound - structures.  I submit that two years without water and power and boarded entries does not constitute any proof whatsoever of structural frailty. The legislative record does not support any rational nexus between the criteria being proposed - water, power, boarding - and the standard - unsound structures - that dictates when demolition may occur. Rather the entire record of the Blight Committee to date is that vacant houses have a blighting influence and should therefore be demolished regardless of whether or not the house itself is structurally sound. This amendment violates what I believe to be established case law designed to protect minority communities from being eviscerated for the crime of being too poor to keep up appearances.

Fourth, the Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan - the City's overarching, charter policy document - stipulates that the City "shall"  - not should, or could, or might - but that it shall seek to implement alternatives that preserve rather than destroy its historic buildings. I submit that this Ordinance is utterly inconsistent with the General Plan is is therefore invalid on its face.

Fifth, much scurrying about is going to occur to nail down just what consitutes "historic buildings". That is all to the good. Any valid definition will require substantial time and analysis of this City's legacy. The federal "standard" of 50 years is only a starting point. To paraphrase Mr. Higby, of Higby and Higby Realtors, (btw, a man Ms. Lee proudly proclaimed "is going to help take a bunch of these houses off our hands" owing to his insider service on a subcommittee of the Human Blight Subcommittee), "gee, 50 years is only 1964. If every neighborhood from 1964 back is going to be exempt, well now, that's going to present a problem for this Ordinance."  Ya think!?  But I would submit that it is unlikely that every collection of houses 50 years or older merits preservation. But do none of them? And if some, which ones? Says who? and Why? Is there no merit to enclaves of the Depression? Of Post War optimism? Of 1950's bomb shelters and 1960's Ranch?  Of housing stock that makes starkly, visibly clear the pernicious and lingering impacts of Red Lining and ghettoization? Sorting through what of our history merits preservation: what of our past is instructive to the present and future generations; this task should occur. I therefore also submit that neither our Office of Legal Council nor our City Council nor Ms. Lee's Human Blight Ad Hoc Subcommittee are in the least bit competent to answer any of these questions. But please do the work. It needs doing. And just as soon as legitimate answers to these questions are introduced into the legislative record, the Demolition Builds Better Neighbors Ordinance can correct at least one of its many glaring defects.

This is a bad bill being offered to communities that deserve - and have deserved - meaningful assistance for decades. I understand the frustration of neighbors who want all the crap removed from their daily lives. But demolition only kills the house, not the bad behavior. The bad actors move to another house and become some other neighbor's daily ordeal. It will cost upwards of $41 million to demolish all the houses targeted by this bill. And that assumes the demolitions continue to employ the lack of proper procedure that caused HUD to request reimbursement of $168,000 for the 14 demolitions they audited that used federal funds. Doing the demos correctly - legally -  will quite possibly double that price tag. And for what? Eighty eight percent of homes demolished 10 years ago remain vacant lots today. Adjacent homes lost 65 percent of value. If all the targeted houses go down, there will be no affordable housing left in JAX. This is a lazy, uncreative response to an epic economic upheaval. Destroying sound houses is wasteful and eliminates value from the County tax rolls that will take generations to replace. Craft a bill that punishes neglectful owners, many of which are banks making record profits while sucking at the tit of Federal Reserve 0% percent funds they loan to us at 3.5 percent and higher. If the owners don't address bad behavior occurring in their property, then take it away from them, fix it and give it to someone who will.  That is a far smaller, less intrusive, less expensive, more precise and targeted response to a "bad house" than this monstrously intrusive, hugely expensive, poorly crafted sawed-off shotgun of a law that's going to level entire communities if anyone is ever actually permitted to pull the trigger. A "bad house" is like a boil. You slice it out. You don't hit it with a sledgehammer. At least I don't. But hey, maybe this City know something I don't.

[sheclown]

wonderfully stated -- says it all

[strider]

This is the Florida state law that seems to prohibit the taking of property simply due to blight.

73.014 Taking property to eliminate nuisance, slum, or blight conditions prohibited.—
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, the state, any political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01( 8 ), or any other entity to which the power of eminent domain is delegated may not exercise the power of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of abating or eliminating a public nuisance. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, abating or eliminating a public nuisance is not a valid public purpose or use for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and does not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6( a ), Art. X of the State Constitution. This subsection does not diminish the power of counties or municipalities to adopt or enforce county or municipal ordinances related to code enforcement or the elimination of public nuisances to the extent such ordinances do not authorize the taking of private property by eminent domain.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, the state, any political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01( 8 ), or any other entity to which the power of eminent domain is delegated may not exercise the power of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, taking private property for the purpose of preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions is not a valid public purpose or use for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and does not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6(a), Art. X of the State Constitution.
History.—s. 2, ch. 2006-11.

(codified 2006 I believe)

[sheclown]

73.014 Taking property to eliminate nuisance, slum, or blight conditions prohibited.—
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, the state, any political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01(, or any other entity to which the power of eminent domain is delegated may not exercise the power of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of abating or eliminating a public nuisance. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, abating or eliminating a public nuisance is not a valid public purpose or use for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and does not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6( a ), Art. X of the State Constitution. This subsection does not diminish the power of counties or municipalities to adopt or enforce county or municipal ordinances related to code enforcement or the elimination of public nuisances to the extent such ordinances do not authorize the taking of private property by eminent domain.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, the state, any political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01( 8 ), or any other entity to which the power of eminent domain is delegated may not exercise the power of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, taking private property for the purpose of preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions is not a valid public purpose or use for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and does not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6(a), Art. X of the State Constitution.
History.—s. 2, ch. 2006-11.

So Florida state law prevents this? 

[strider]

Why does the statute exist?  Well basically it was designed to prevent the wholesale condemnation and taking by eminent domain of property in a "blighted" area and giving it to a developer who will, in theory, build a better place and generate higher taxes, IE for a higher purpose in the minds of the governing entity.  Government entities like Jacksonville liked being able to condemn entire communities due to Blight as then it more or less enabled them to hide the real reasons an area was being cleared out.  It was Blight so that was enough.  No set plans had to be in place. This was pretty common practice, one I think we can see in LaVilla for instance.  Developers claimed they could do much and so the property was taken and in this case, nothing much was done with the property afterward.

One can easily see that by stating it was "blight", there was no need to worry about unsafe or the public saftey, all could go no matter the condition. While one can also see that the statute does not prevent the normal condemnation or taking of property due to being unsafe or other reasons considered valid, the important phrase here is this one:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, taking private property for the purpose of preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions is not a valid public purpose or use for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and does not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6(a), Art. X of the State Constitution.

Now wait a minute, you say, the Blight ordinance is not taking ones private property, it is going to demolish it and the lot will remain the owners.  Yes.  And no.  Yes, while the city claims it is not truly taking the property by eminent domain and yes the property, or what's left of it complete with the new demolition lien, will remain in the owners name, the city must take ownership of the property to be able to demolish it.  I believe when pushed, some will explain that they simply take possession of the structure which is then removed from the owners lot.

We know they in fact do this by default because once the contract to demolish is let out, the owner is told it is no longer their house and the only way that is true is if the city takes possession of the house and then gives it to the demolition contractor.  In addition, the very fact that the owner of a condemned house has to get permission to be on his own property or face arrest supports the idea that the city is taking the house. I personally see issues with that procedure but I believe they get away with it because they use the public safety excuse.  It is done for the betterment of the public's health and welfare.

In the case of this new ordinance, it appears they will now take or demolish structurally sound houses only because they are blight. Of course, we will hear that they are unsafe structures under the ordinance and that is why they are coming down. They will say this because they are adding the 24 month language to the definition of unsafe therefore the structurally sound house is now an unsafe one.

I say that this new ordinance is doing it's best to circumvent the state statute and by doing so is breaking the law.  In  fact, I personally think the entire process used by Jacksonville today to demolish someone else's personal real property is suspect and is being closely looked at.