40 Places Code Enforcement Wants to Demolish

[I-10east]

^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...

[vicupstate]

^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...

Do these groups have the financial and other wherewithal to build in short order on these lots? Even so, that does not address the very obvious legal issues or why buildings that are clearly not beyond repair are chosen for placement on this list.

Demolitions are difficult to obtain and rare in Charleston but even when they are approved, a building permit must be obtained for the NEW structure before a demolition permit is issued for the OLD one. That way the party involved can't just say they have a plan for a replacement, they have to actually provide it (and have it approved).  This prevents 'gap tooth' vacant lot accumulation which history tells us will be the end result of JAX's policy.



   

[sheclown]

A quick drive through the urban core shows how rarely these vacant lots are rebuilt

[strider]

^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...

So where is the common sense of demolishing house after house without thought as to what to do with the empty lot?

The orgs like Habijax just do not have the resources to do the number of houses needed to have a successful rehab program.  That is why the "Blight Ordinance" included for profit companies in the mix.  The for profit companies can do the work for less and do it quicker and also handle a far higher number of houses.  I fear however that the city both lacks the capacity to set up a successful program and that some within the leadership really does want to only use the demolition part of the ordinance and never intended to pursue saving any of the houses.

[mbwright]

I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.  I certainly have not heard of any sort of RFP for rehab. 

I do really like the Charleston laws of must have permit for new structure to replace an old one, not just a demo.  This should be required for any historic district, or structure (house, warehouse, church or other)  50 years old or older.  The value of a demo at $2400 on a permit to avoid the NOC, and charging 8-10K per demo should be fraud, and illegal, but I would be that this would be hard to fight without interest in the activity.  I doubt a love for old houses would be enough.

[I-10east]

I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.

Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy... 

[strider]

I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.

Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight it's going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy... 

Actually, I just reaffirmed with a couple of investors I know.  They will take as many as they can get. Every single house available?  Of course not, but on the list above, the majority would qualify for them without a second thought. Some houses will need to be taken down, but the facts are that if you can give the majority a second chance by giving it to an investor who must agree to rehab within a certain time frame (per the ordinance), then even if the giving costs the same as the demotion, the future returns from the rehabbed house is 100 times better than that weed filled empty lot.

The desire to demo isn't laziness, it is not using common sense.  Or worse, corruption. Maybe both. We need better leadership than we are getting from the Mayor's office and most of City Council.

[vicupstate]

I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.

Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy... 

Barely a year ago,  I had a face to face conversation with a man that has been doing rehab and new construction in Springfield, with great success. He told me that he tried to buy a condemned home in Springfield next to one of his new houses, which he wanted to rehab.

He was told that this particular house was 'way down the list' and that the opportunity to obtain it would have to wait until the city staff worked it's way to that one. Based on current staffing levels, etc. it would be a year or two.  He was told he should check back later.

The house clearly needed cosmetics but did not look obviously structurally compromised.  The rehabber/builder told me that in two years that might not be the case, and that even if it was still salvageable then, it would no doubt be more expensive to do so than if he started immediately.  He pointed out some things that if not addressed now, would lead to bigger problems later.

He surmised that the city's added tax revenue from the two year interval (from a renovated property today vs. the same one done two years hence),  could easily pay for the cost of additional inspectors/bureaucrats the city would have to hire.



       

[strider]

I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.

Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy... 

Barely a year ago,  I had a face to face conversation with a man that has been doing rehab and new construction in Springfield, with great success. He told me that he tried to buy a condemned home in Springfield next to one of his new houses, which he wanted to rehab.

He was told that this particular house was 'way down the list' and that the opportunity to obtain it would have to wait until the city staff worked it's way to that one. Based on current staffing levels, etc. it would be a year or two.  He was told he should check back later.

The house clearly needed cosmetics but did not look obviously structurally compromised.  The rehabber/builder told me that in two years that might not be the case, and that even if it was still salvageable then, it would no doubt be more expensive to do so than if he started immediately.  He pointed out some things that if not addressed now, would lead to bigger problems later.

He surmised that the city's added tax revenue from the two year interval (from a renovated property today vs. the same one done two years hence),  could easily pay for the cost of additional inspectors/bureaucrats the city would have to hire.



       

Yes, time is often an issue.  However, as it already in the ordinances to allow the city to repair as well as demolish, the initial small issues could just as easily be repaired and make the houses more desirable, not only for a potential owner but for the residents living around them.   As to manpower, when HUD allows for the hiring of a person to do things like 106 reviews using HUD funds and the city of Jacksonville doesn't bother to do it, well, we are back at that leadership thing again. 

[Kay]

Joe, I couldn't agree with you more.  The City is taking a short-sighted and more costly path.  Long-term, we all benefit from repairing early and maintaining these structures.  The City's historic planning division is undertaking a review of the properties. 

I drove around the areas with Ennis and most targeted for demolition are located in intact neighborhoods--meaning the housing stock is still there and most of the blocks have no vacant parcels.  We need to prevent these neighborhoods from going the way of some others.

[Redbaron616]

First, this bill should not have been passed. Secondly, anything remotely habitable should be put up for sale rather than demolition. Apparently the city government has way to much money sitting around doing nothing if you can afford to demolish all these buildings. Government always wants more and more power over the citizens. Government is supposed to be our servants, but it is our master now.

[standalone]

Thanks for providing the information.  Some of these homes do look like they could be viable and it worry's me that this is so heavily weighted in the minority community.  I would also like to hear of some plan to do more than leave a vacant lot that will quickly become a dump site.  If you go into a neighborhood and see a bunch of vacant lots it isn't any more appealing than the abandoned houses.  I also hope they are going to double check their list.  Several of the homes don't fit the year that they show they were built and at least one looks completely different than the picture on google (2817 Market).  We have a lot of homeless vets, why don't we kill two birds with one stone?  Fix up the homes that we can and give them to the vets for the sacrifices they made for us all.