Another Historic Downtown Demolition In The Works?

[coredumped]

I wonder if the church could take it over for Sunday school, etc.

[Debbie Thompson]

If you can't attend the meeting, be SURE you email to register your opposition to the demolition.  I sent my email off to Joel and Autumn. They always mention at HPC how many emails they received.

[Redbaron616]

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

[vicupstate]

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

You don't even understand what is going on here. The historic designation is to PREVENTthe property owner from being REQUIRED to DEMOLISH his building, whether he wants to or not.

The building is boarded up and is not in danger of collapse.  Without the protection that the designation provides, he will be forced to demolish it.  Doesn't he have the property RIGHT to keep his building??!! 

[grimss]

The wonderful talk given by Ed McMahon at last year's TEDxJacksonville conference speaks very eloquently to the need to retain unique structures such as this, and also provides a powerful economic argument for preserving a city's sense of place. It was the talk that many attendees voted as the one they'd most like the Mayor to hear: http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8

[Gamblor]

Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own.

The irony is thick with this one...

[strider]

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

You don't even understand what is going on here. The historic designation is to PREVENTthe property owner from being REQUIRED to DEMOLISH his building, whether he wants to or not.

The building is boarded up and is not in danger of collapse.  Without the protection that the designation provides, he will be forced to demolish it.  Doesn't he have the property RIGHT to keep his building??!! 

I think you both are somewhat right and somewhat wrong.   As a society, we accept having to do things for the greater good all the time.  We pay school taxes when we have no children in school, we wear seat belts even if we do not want to, we pay extra for things for social/ safety reasons, we see parts of our taxes going to help the homeless.  Call this Social Responsibility.  That is the basis for what Code Compliance does.  It is an attempt at making owners of properties socially responsible by maintaining their buildings.  Like many other government worker controlled things, it can get out of hand.  What I mean by this is that a falling in front porch can be a public safety issue but perhaps bad plumbing is a personal safety issue.  The latter is called public safety by MCCD and is reason enough to demolish a building.  However, if no one is living there, where is the public safety issue?  The point is that a building is condemned and then fined for the good of the public so therefore, it stands to reason it can be saved for the good of the public.  In fact, to truly protect the rights of the property owner, you must have both sides of that equation.  If the city has to right to prevent you from even entering your property without permission from them, to eventually demolish it if they so decide, then there needs to be a mechanism to counter the city to prevent the abuse of the system.  In this case, it is the Landmark designation that will counter the city removing the property owners rights and restore some of those protections. One also has to consider that the reason the city can remove those rights is that fact that they have given the owner ample time to correct the issues they have found and the owner has failed to do so.  It makes no difference to the city if the owner failed to make the repairs because he can't afford to, or just won't.  The Landmark status is different as it gives more affordable options to the owner and can provide some financial incentives to help out with those repairs. Especially with condemned buildings, the Landmark or Historic designation brings many safeguards that can counter the effects of what Jacksonville's MCCD can do in how they write up the perceived issues.  Once the new options are available, if it is a case of the owner refusing to take care of the issues, then it buys some time to figure that out and gives the city other options to save the building for the public good. In the latter case, it is not so much society removing the owners rights, it is the owner giving up those rights by ignoring his social responsibility.

[JFman00]

At the end of the day the issue is money. Owners that lack the capital to make needed repairs; a city that squanders the money it gets it's hands on. But with solutions and examples around these days like Fundrise, community organizations like the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation that do more than function as glorified HOAs, the Maron family in Cleveland, even individuals like Jason Roberts who do stunning things with just their time, the missing component of Jax is people with both vision and dedication in actually effecting large-scale change.

This is not to take away from lights in the darkness like Ron Chamblin and Ben Davis, or even Shad Khan, but given their commitments to their businesses I think it's unreasonable to expect them to be a panacea. MetroJacksonville does a laudable job building awareness, but awareness is not sufficient in and of itself to effect change. One option would be for government to step in and get the ball rolling, but I can't be the only one underwhelmed with the DIA. DVI is equally disappointing for me.

[sheclown]

The wonderful talk given by Ed McMahon at last year's TEDxJacksonville conference speaks very eloquently to the need to retain unique structures such as this, and also provides a powerful economic argument for preserving a city's sense of place. It was the talk that many attendees voted as the one they'd most like the Mayor to hear: http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8

http://www.youtube.com/v/qB5tH4rt-x8?rel=0

[samelevel]

This is a perfect project for Ability Housing, and a great spot for Veteran housing. If Michelle Tappouni could make this happen I might vote for her. I'd also suggest that someone should start DHARE (Downtown Historic Area Revitalization Effort) or some really powerful influential organization that could actually solve problems like this. It takes money to repair old buildings not just moaning and groaning.

[mtraininjax]

Agreed with the consensus that it takes money to fix old properties, and even then, they are not always worth it. Look at what Timken has been trying to do with the Public School #4 under the Fuller Warren Bridge. That property has been on fire, sitting and rotting for years, or the fire station on Riverside, just sitting, rotting, waiting for its next use. There are so many properties abandoned, just sitting, rotting, but little money to fix, restore and re-use. Nice building too.

[jaxmuseum]

We would love to have a free standing building like this! Wish it was in better shape.

[Timkin]

Agreed with the consensus that it takes money to fix old properties, and even then, they are not always worth it. Look at what Timken has been trying to do with the Public School #4 under the Fuller Warren Bridge. That property has been on fire, sitting and rotting for years, or the fire station on Riverside, just sitting, rotting, waiting for its next use. There are so many properties abandoned, just sitting, rotting, but little money to fix, restore and re-use. Nice building too.

not to hijack the thread , lack of money is only one issue with the School. ( and the property that was part of it,until it was deliberately cut up a few years back)   

Timkin hasn't changed on his position with Annie Lytle, and he would not for Elena Flats.  But he does get that the issue of funding to renovate is much easier said , than done.

Hope all is well with each of you .  Blessings

[JaxUnicorn]

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

The "owner" in this case has not paid taxes. The last year of taxes paid by Jimmie Lee Clark, Jr. was 2011, paid on 05/06/11.  Taxes for 2012-2014 are unpaid (to the total of $23,182 and it appears as though the certificate holder has started the tax deed process.  So you see, in this case, the owner is a bit remiss in his duties as a property owner.

[Gunnar]

Just curious: Has anything been done to the building maintenance /  upkeep wise since it was bought ? Makes you wonder why some people buy properties in the first place if they do not do anything with them.