439 East 1st - Code Enforcement's Sneaky "Emergency" Demolition

[JaxUnicorn]

There were two Riverside demolition requests on today's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting and I attended to support RAP in stopping the demolitions.  Boy, was I glad I did!!!

When I arrived, Code Enforcement was speaking about demolishing the historic Springfield structure located at 439 East 1st Street as an emergency.  This was not even on the Agenda! And they brought all the big guns:  Kim Scott, Director of Regulatory Compliance, Bryan Mosier, Chief of Code Enforcement, Michael Chao, Inspector, Bruce Chauncey, Supervisor and Tom Goldsbury, Chief of Building Inspections.  Apparently they were there to present this as a "potential emergency".

Tom Goldsbury stated the roof was in bad shape although he could not see it, the house was structurally insufficient, has years of settling, and anything can be stabilized.

Michael Chao stated the following:

• Code Enforcement has spoken with the owner who has no interest in the property whatsoever. 
• There is an engineering report that states the structure should be demolished. 
• Code Enforcement asked three general contractors bid the property in three ways:  1. Save, 2; Limited demo; 3. Complete demo. 


• Hagar Construction Company did not bid on Option 1 or Option 2; the bid for Option 3 was $27,300.
• CORE Construction Company did not bid on Option 1 or Option 2; the bid for Option 3 was $37,286.
• Burkhalter Wrecking, Inc.'s bid on Option 1 was $126,500 (which included a complete restoration of the two story wood frame addition at the rear); Option 2 was $24,795; Option 3 was $39,140.

When I was able to speak, I asked the Commission where the HPC packet is because I didn't see it online.  Chairman Barry Underwood confirmed it was a last minute addition to the Agenda.  I stated that Jacksonville Ordinance requires that the "least intrusive measure" be used when dealing with historic properties.  I suggested that the funds slated to destroy this property be used instead to stabilize it.  I also asked that Code Enforcement work with people who are able to restore....i.e. Preservation SOS.  I also suggested another engineering report from a more preservation-minded engineer.

Snipets from Kim Scott:

• This is an emergency and has deteriorated significantly since July.
• Code Enforcement does not mothball.
• Code Enforcement does not seek demolition on any property.
• People you give it to have to have the means to immediately renovate, not hold it until they get the funds.
• Code Enforcement doesn't do renovations.
• You have described mothballing which is not a function of Code Compliance. Talk to Mr. McEachin.

Bryan Mosier: Code Enforcement is acting under Chapter 518 of the ordinance code. Chapter 307 (historic section) is enforced by the Building Dept, not Code Enforcement.

Jennifer Mansfield suggested the City foreclose on their liens; the city attorney said they cannot foreclose on administrative liens, but only on those with cash layout. (I personally don't think this is the case.  Bostwick Building??)

There was some discussion as to whether or not they needed to vote on the Certificate of Opinion; the City attorney said they must vote.  Jennifer Mansfield made a motion to remove the rear addition and secure the remainder of the property.  The vote passed.  Code Enforcement was not happy.

After the vote, Jennifer provided me with a copy of the packet presented to the Commissioners.  What constitutes an emergency?  A change that warrants immediate action (within 72 hours) to prevent harm to others.  Well, in the packet is an email dated 09/25/15 at 1:58 PM (more than a month ago!) from Michael Chao to Autumn Martinage, Joel McEachin, Gary Kresel, Bryan Mosier and Devron Cody stating since July 13, 2015 "the structure has continued to deteriorate to the current condition where emergency action has been deemed necessary by MCCD."  Autumn immediate replied immediately (same day at 3:26 PM) stating she went to the property and recommends "selective demolition of the rear porch/addition and see if the rest of the structure is still sound after that part is removed before proceeding with the complete demolition of the structure." 

Yes, the rear of this structure needs to be removed.  The entire structure does not.  My last experience with Code Enforcement's appearance at an HPC meeting was in May, 2013 where they voted to request stabilization of the front porch of 129 East 2nd Street.  The next day Code Enforcement had the bulldozers out demolishing the entire structure.

Why can't Code Enforcement spend the $27,000 to stabilize it instead of destroy it??

[DDC]

This is sad. And if it is that bad, tear off the back and secure the rest.

At some point someone needs to let Code Enforcement know what "Least Intrusive" means

[sheclown]

Code Enforcement's job is to follow the ordinance (and state law) which clearly states that in the case of historic properties, mitigating the safety issues REQUIRES that the city use the lightest touch available.  In this case, as in many others, that means removing the rear addition.

The Commissioners have spoken!  Kudos to them and especially Jennifer Mansfield.

And kudos to you Kim, for standing up for the houses.

[strider]

Bryan Mosier: Code Enforcement is acting under Chapter 518 of the ordinance code. Chapter 307 (historic section) is enforced by the Building Dept, not Code Enforcement.

Interesting that the new head of MCCD apparently has no idea what his and his departments job really is.  Here is the section from 307 that Kim referred to and Mr. Mosier basically stated does not apply to them:

Sec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 17; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-408-E, § 2)
Editor's note—
Ordinance 2007-839-E, § 18, authorized updated department/division names pursuant to reorganization.

And here's a general statement from 307 as well:

1.1.3The City of Jacksonville shall incorporate into its historic preservation ordinance, procedures for the review by the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, or any subsequent review body, of all plans that will physically alter the appearance of a designated site, property or historic district. This review will be required of all departments, agencies, and other authorities of the City or companies or contractors representing any department, agency or authority of the City performing work for the City

Please note that the basic charter for section 307, Historic Properties and Landmarks, requires that every department follow it's requirements.  Then of course, section 307 must be followed by MCCD as it applies to them.   

This is a common issue with Kimberly Scoot and her minions.  They try to only follow the laws they decide meet their goals and often misquote the few laws they actually want to enforce. We know the bad management of this department has cost the city hundreds of thousands just in the last few years and we know a potential million or so more could be proven.  When is the Mayor going to realize this and make the needed changes so that MCCD stops being the bully it is and actually becomes the department that helps the city and it's citizens like it is truly supposed to be doing?

[strider]

Sec. 518.103. - Applicability.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, if a structure sought to be regulated is a landmark or contributing structure located in a historic district, such regulatory efforts shall be tailored to have the least intensive impact on the structure while still furthering the intent of this Chapter.

Just to further state the lack of understanding and desire to follow the ordinances they themselves are charged to enforce, here is the same language about using the least intrusive methods on historic structures found in section 307 but in this case from section 518.

In addition, the ordinances give the right to MCCD to REPAIR as well as simply fine and demolish. It is policy not law the stops MCCD from do a simple repair or even mothballing a structure, both of which would save this city money over the policies of hindering being followed today.

[CCMjax]

This is a common issue with Kimberly Scoot and her minions.  They try to only follow the laws they decide meet their goals and often misquote the few laws they actually want to enforce. We know the bad management of this department has cost the city hundreds of thousands just in the last few years and we know a potential million or so more could be proven.  When is the Mayor going to realize this and make the needed changes so that MCCD stops being the bully it is and actually becomes the department that helps the city and it's citizens like it is truly supposed to be doing?

What are their goals?  Are they trying to create work for themselves so they can justify keeping their job?

[JaxUnicorn]

I wish I knew CCMJax...I wish I knew... 

[movedsouth]

Code Enforcements goal is, and always has been, rather simple: Close cases. In a number of conversations in the past this came up as the way they measure success. Mothballing doesn't close the case. Demolition does. Unless this metric is replaced with something more meaningful, things will not change.

[JaxUnicorn]

MCCD has filed a formal COA to demolish this home. 15-913 will be heard at the December 9, 2015 HPC meeting.

The owner is a now dissolved LLC. I attempted to contact the owner of the LLC (Clifton Higbee) and learned that sadly he passed away on November 20th. I'm waiting for someone to call me back regarding his estate.

We need to be at the December HPC meeting to oppose this demolition.  Use the funds slated to destroy the entire structure to stabilize it.  We must require City Employees to follow the LAW.

[sheclown]

Apparently, the head of the historic planning department, Joel McEachin, has signed off on the request of MCCD to demolish the entire structure in spite of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation that the home be saved with the addition ONLY removed.

With the approval signed off by staff, it will make this week's meeting at HPC an interesting one.  Will the commissioners also bow down to political pressure to destroy the very fabric of the historic district, the purpose of their existence?  Or will they (as they have in the past) rise to the occasion?

Obviously, Code needs the HPC to sign off on this one.  We wonder why.  There are probably federal dollars involved somehow.

We've been fighting this hard for over 5 years now.  We've been loud, (some say obnoxiously so), we've pleaded with everyone from DC to Tallahassee and back.  We've been taken to the green room at city council and had sweet nothings whispered in our ears (and believe me, it turned out to be nothing after all).   We've been called radical preservationists. 

And when you realize that there isn't an ally to be had EVEN in the city's preservation department, it makes you want to say EFF THIS SHIT. 

TEAR THE MOTHER DOWN. 

TEAR THE FREAKING CITY DOWN FOR ALL I CARE.

...........................

Of course, that is what is suppose to happen, isn't it? We toss up our hands and surrender.

Well, that's not going to happen with us.

And let's hope it won't happen with the Historic Preservation Commissioners either.

[JaxUnicorn]

Political pressure is always nasty.  I hate it....means someone has some secret agenda somewhere.  And it takes someone with huge "guts and nads" or someone who just doesn't care what happens to him/her to go against it.

That being said, I think (hope) that in this case, Joel's recommendation to approve will be ignored by the HPC.  They have already VOTED in October to DENY DEMOLITION and REMOVE THE BACK PORCH AND STABILIZE.  There will have to be some mighty good additional evidence presented to make them go back and change that vote now, even with Joel's "recommendation". 

Sheclown, I too feel like giving up.  I'm tired of fighting and tired of being drug through the mud all because I fight for preservation.  But I WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING!!!  And I don't think you will either.    SAVE THE HOUSES!

[mbwright]

There must be some sort of kickback going on here.  No reason for a demo, especially an emergency.  There needs to be some sort of penalty, such a jail time, hard labor or a high fine for this reckless behavior.  There also should not be any 'last minute' agenda items of this nature.  That should also be illegal.

[aubureck]

Apparently, the owner of the property recently died as well, right before Thanksgiving.

[vicupstate]

Any idea who specifically is applying this pressure to demolish?

Are the Historic Preservation Commission subject to removal by the Mayor? 

BTW, what ever happened with the Planning Commission members that he wanted to replace? I assume by now, it has been decided, but I obviously missed it.

[sheclown]

Any idea who specifically is applying this pressure to demolish?

Are the Historic Preservation Commission subject to removal by the Mayor? 

BTW, what ever happened with the Planning Commission members that he wanted to replace? I assume by now, it has been decided, but I obviously missed it.

Certainly the mayor could remove the historic preservation commissioners if he chooses to do so.  And that, of course, is a concern.  On the other hand, bowing down to political pressure to demolish a sound structure in a Nationally Recognized Historic District would render the commissioners rather impotent.  I can't imagine that it would sit very well with the Springfield community should the commissioners okay this demo while insisting on dictating the style of a neighboring front door five minutes later.

Commissioners, we are counting on you.  SAVE THE HOUSES