1634 Ionia - owner requested demolition

[sheclown]

Preservation SOS is raising funds to help pay for the appeal of the HPC decision granting permission to demolish this historic contributing structure. Please consider supporting us in this effort. The appeal will cost $800 plus an additional cost for each person who spoke or wrote a letter. We anticipate the cost to be around $1000. We are using GoFundMe for this fundraising campaign..

SAVE THE HOUSES.

Respect the designation.

https://www.gofundme.com/preservationsos

Preservation SOS is a 501 (c) 3

http://www.preservationsos.org/

[sheclown]

Update:  We have raised $330 in just 24 hours.  Hopefully this momentum will continue and PSOS will be able to fight the reckless demolition of our historic neighborhood.

Thank you for your support!

[JaxUnicorn]

I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse.  He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do.  Preservation SOS is continuing to gather evidence to support our appeal of the demolition approval.

10/09/15 EDIT:  We did NOT enter the structure as that would be against the law.  The informal visit was done at my request and we knew we would not be able to access the interior.  I simply wanted to get another engineer's "take" on the stability of the structure.  To fully assess the structure would require the owner's permission to enter and extensive investigation.

The first assessment letter submitted by Baker Klein was based on a visual inspection that did not include a full walk-through of the structure; they never even went upstairs! 

And speaking of the appeal, thank you to everyone who has donated to this very worthy cause.  So far we have raised $465 of the $1,000 it will cost to appeal the HPC's decision to allow this historic structure to be demolished.  If you have not yet donated, please consider it - any amount is very much appreciated!  We have one week left to file the appeal.  https://www.gofundme.com/preservationsos

1634 Ionia thanks you and Preservation SOS thanks you!  SAVE THE HOUSES!

[NaldoAveKnight]

I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse.  He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do. 

How could the structural engineer (with 10 years experience) have access to the building when there's a sign out front that clearly states "Do not enter.  Unsafe structure."?  So this assessment was made by walking around the perimeter of the property and he just rubbed his chin and said, "you know what, we can brace this house relatively inexpensively."

[ChriswUfGator]

I visited this property yesterday with a structural engineer with 10 years of experience who said he did not see anything that led him to believe this house is in any danger of collapse.  He did mention bracing could be installed (relatively inexpensive) in the back to support the rear addition if that was something the owner wanted to do. 

How could the structural engineer (with 10 years experience) have access to the building when there's a sign out front that clearly states "Do not enter.  Unsafe structure."?  So this assessment was made by walking around the perimeter of the property and he just rubbed his chin and said, "you know what, we can brace this house relatively inexpensively."

The building is standing open actually, this is a common theme we see with owner-requested demolitions, they have this tendency to start ripping out windows, leaving doors open, taking out interior bits, and then stand back and say "oh just look at this mess, this is so uneconomic to repair" when presenting their case to the city, despite the fact that they caused a good chunk of it. It's demolition-by-neglect as a strategy. After about the 4th time you run through this same pattern with people, you can sort of set your watch by it, it becomes very predictable. And this one is no different, the guy is a neighboring landowner, he wants the lot.

Regarding 'unsafe structure' warnings, obviously people disagree with that assessment, and are willing to assume the risk. In this case considering it's a bunch of contractors and an engineer in preparation for the demolition appeal, it sort of strikes me they're probably qualified to judge their risk. If the owner wants a waiver of liability I'm happy to have one signed and give it to him.

Personally I don't get your outlook on the whole thing...

If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place? There are plenty of places on the southside where you can do whatever you want and nobody will question you. This obviously isn't that place. If this is the core of your objection, why choose to live in a historic district?

[NaldoAveKnight]

If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?

Neighbors?  Really?  I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"

If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it.  Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.

[ChriswUfGator]

If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?

Neighbors?  Really?  I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"

If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it.  Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.

Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?

I'll admit in some other cities sometimes it gets taken to extremes. Try and paint your house a different color in Charleston, if you want to see the living breathing example of what you're talking about. It does exist, and I'll acknowledge your point. There's also the other extreme, and I think we've all met personalities like this, it's your typical "I can do whatever the hell I want" type who moves into a subdivision and then doesn't understand why the HOA is always on his ass to keep his grass cut. What did he expect.

I think this is closer to the HOA-whiner end of the spectrum than it is to Charleston or Saint Augustine end of it, where you have to petition a design review board a year in advance to paint your house. This is a contributing historic structure within a national historic district, and a guy who knows that buys it for the specific purpose of demolishing it because he wants the extra lot. This is according to the horse's mouth, by the way. He wrote an open letter to the HPC stating his reason.

Doesn't it seem like there's some middle ground in there between one group of people telling another group how to spend their money, and the the guy who buys in a gated community then bitches when he can't have his grass 4' high or park his sewage truck in the front yard?

[NaldoAveKnight]

Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?

While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable.  It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire.  The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes.  This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around.  It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago.  There's nothing sweet or special about it. 

However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished.  The owner jumped through those hoops.  He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'.  All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.

[NaldoAveKnight]

If you honestly believe you should be able to take down a contributing historic structure in a national historic district because you want you want to add a pool to your house in one case, or add a garage to your property in another case, or in this case because you want the lot, and you expect your neighbors not to fight you on it, then why'd you move into the historic district in the first place?

Neighbors?  Really?  I bet if you talked to anyone in a five house radius of 1634 and asked if the house should be removed the same answer would come back - "please tear it down!"

If there's a gem out there then buy it and restore it.  Don't expect other folks to do YOUR wishes on THEIR dime.

Perha[s thats why you live in san marco and don't know a damn thing about springfield?

I used to live in Springfield and know the uphill battle many good folks have fought trying to make it better.  Usually they get beat down by the busybody know it alls and bail out.

[iloveionia]

"Strange special interest group" LOL I'll leave that one alone.
Myself, or my family with my help, own five properties on Ionia alone. One of those (wait for it) well within 5 houses of this said "crummy property" Another two properties (my dad living at one of these,) 6 houses away.
"Please tear it down"
No.
Save the houses.
Bet lost.

[sheclown]

Save the Houses.



even on Ionia Street (especially on Ionia Street)

[JaxUnicorn]

I have edited my post to add some clarity and copied the added verbiage below:

We did NOT enter the structure as that would be against the law.  The informal visit was done at my request and we knew we would not be able to access the interior.  I simply wanted to get another engineer's "take" on the stability of the structure.  To fully assess the structure would require the owner's permission to enter and extensive investigation.

The first assessment letter submitted by Baker Klein was based on a visual inspection that did not include a full walk-through of the structure; they never even went upstairs!

A couple of other items to note:

• The owner stated in a letter that there are no plans for the lot.
• The owner's "Written Statement of Reasoning" says it all:
  

  I am the current owner of the property which I acquired on April 29, 2015, with the expectation that it would be town down to help erase not only the huge liability that this property possesses, but also the blight that it brings to such a wonderful community, where I recently started building a home for my family and myself.  I have two children and the subject property sits about 20ft away from my new home and the subject property is in such dangerous condition that I would not allow my children to play outside near it.  1634 Ionia not only poses a great hazard to my children, but to every person who lives near, walks by or even drives by this property.

• You cannot tear down contributing homes in a nationally recognized Historic District without a fight.
• This house burned in 2010 and has been standing for 5 years with no issue.  She is not listing or leaning.  She simply needs someone to restore her to her original glory.
• The owner is a developer who, in addition to building a monstrous home behind this one (started over a year ago and still no siding), has submitted plans to build two additional homes near the corner of E 7th and Ionia.
• Yes, there is a hole in the roof - the rear addition.  The roof of the original part of the structure is in tact and not leaking.
• At the August HPC meeting a licensed contractor offered in person to purchase the home.  That offer was immediately rejected.

SAVE THE HOUSES

[ChriswUfGator]

No plans for the lot my azz...he's a developer...he got the house cheap...lets do the math on this one lol

[vicupstate]

Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?

   

While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable.  It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire.  The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes.  This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around.  It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago.  There's nothing sweet or special about it. 

However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished.  The owner jumped through those hoops.  He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'.  All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.

You do realize (or do you?) that virtually EVERY house in Springfield was in a very similar condition at one point or another, usually for many years if not decades.  This includes the ones that are fully restored today and fully functional and beautiful. The same can be said for the vast majority of historic houses in Charleston and Savannah.  Ditto for certain sections of Riverside and San Marco.  Mount Vernon was actually in terrible condition at one point as well, before being saved.

You simply have no understanding of this issue. Whatsoever.

[JaxUnicorn]

Do you think there's any room for discussion about whether, or to what extent, your "spending someone else's money" argument might go out the window when somebody decides to buy property in a national historic district, and then complain that he isn't allowed to tear it down a month later? It's not like they weren't aware of it, he bought the property subject to the designation, didn't he?

While it is in a national historic district there is a huge hole in the roof, the windows are busted out, and a fire made the place unlivable.  It was a crummy multi-unit rental property until the fire.  The owner abandoned the property and it was sold for back taxes.  This isn't the kind of place that most folks think of when the words 'national historic district' are thrown around.  It's just a nasty rental property that was built a long time ago.  There's nothing sweet or special about it. 

However, because it's old there's certain hoops that have to be jumped through before it can be demolished.  The owner jumped through those hoops.  He followed the rules and is trying to clean up what is probably the roughest part of the 'national historic district'.  All of a sudden a strange special interest group with a rallying cry of 'Save The Houses' is breaking the law by trespassing on the property and trying to revoke the owner's property rights and get laws bent to how they see fit.

You do realize (or do you?) that virtually EVERY house in Springfield was in a very similar condition at one point or another, usually for many years if not decades.  This includes the ones that are fully restored today and fully functional and beautiful. The same can be said for the vast majority of historic houses in Charleston and Savannah.  Ditto for certain sections of Riverside and San Marco.  Mount Vernon was actually in terrible condition at one point as well, before being saved.

You simply have no understanding of this issue. Whatsoever.

Well said!  Below is another example of what can be done when these homes are given the chance to stand and be restored.