Executive Director of SPAR Council "Comes Out"!

[sheclown]

SPAR stands for Springfield Preservation and Revitalization. (n: to give new life or vigor to)

...hence the irony of tearing them down.  (Including commercial buildings)

[CS Foltz]

Kids.....if you just did not pay your dues to SPAR......those suckers would wither away and die off! They clearly have their own agenda and program and you guys and your houses are not part of it! If you can't form a counter organization then force them to come to grips with reality! I know it is easier said then done but if you have enough bodies to counter them then you may be able to get something done!

[strider]

quote author=thelakelander link=topic=1911.msg104658#msg104658 date=1256058724]
Wow.  I don't see it how you're presenting it, which goes back to the "context" issue I mentioned earlier this morning.  Its hard to base a theory on anything out of the email that has been presented here.  In reality, SPAR has no true control over code enforcement.  Buildings are falling all over town because the city is putting property owners in a situation where the only financially sound solution (for the owner) is demolition.  Any idea on how the code enforcement departments are run in Savannah and Charleston and how those operations differ from Jacksonville's?  My guess is this has more to do with Jax's blighted building stock being destroyed than SPAR running city hall.
[/quote]


The e-mail which is the subject of this thread is sort of like the icing on the cake.  There is a history here that actually goes back many, many years.  There are many details being left out, this post is very long as it is.

A review of the codes involved show that about a three to four year period is typically what it takes for a condemned house to go from “condemned” to “demo”  within the current system.  As far as I know, these same laws have been basically on the books as they are for decades.  There were some changes a couple of years ago that supposedly made it easier to demo, but I don’t believe they changed the overall system much.

Based on this, we must ask how the houses many Springfield residents currently live in survived?  After all, the house I first lived in had been empty and condemned for about 15 years.  Two other houses I have been involved with that are gone today had been condemned for at least fifteen years for one and twenty years for the other. 

The answer is actually pretty simple.  HSCC.  Historic Springfield Community Council.  Phil Neary was the ED for most (if not all) of this organizations existence.  He fought constantly  with the city to save all of the houses here.  When the city went through one of the department heads that thought all of Springfield should be leveled and started emergency demolitions,  he fought them every step of the way.  The Dorsey-Frank’s house on the East side had been approved for demo, was deemed an unsafe structure that had to come down as an emergency, the equipment was there and Lisa Neary was standing in front of it as the final paperwork arrived saying that a new owner had bought the house and  that the demo must be stopped.  Somehow, through the tenacity of a few, it worked and this house has been on tours, in magazines and is gorgeous.

Most of the time, however, there was an understood “hands off” on the historic houses.  This was not an official law, it just was.   My original house on Pearl street was one of these houses.   So were the ones on 7th street.  No fines, no nasty letters.  At least as long as they were kept neat, boarded up and the grass cut. For most of the time (a few years) that I owned my houses, code enforcement did not enter in to the equation. 

Another thing of note is that SRG made advances to buy these two houses.  The only problem was that if they did, they wanted Phil to at least not fight the demolition of these two houses so that condos could be built on that site.  You see, the lot that was “donated” for the steam boat house on the east side was actually traded for the paved parking lot on West 7th street.  SRG was also surprised that part of the paved area was actually owned by Phil Neary.  Along about now, JSO brought the houses up for demo in front of the HPC.  Perhaps it should be noted that the security fund was in place at this time. No accusation, but a note of interest.

Something else interesting was that the first time that code enforcement took this house to an enforcement board, sitting on the committee was Lisa Simon, who has ties to SRG, who had said they wanted the house torn down.  No accusation, but a note of interest.  Phil knows the system and so wrote a letter or two, got told Ms. Simon would be removed  (don’t know if that happened) and  the boards decision to levy fines was reversed and Phil granted much more time.  It should also be noted that during this time period, the actual code enforcement officer kept saying any progress would be OK, but the board said that wasn’t good enough.

A few years ago,  the status of these old houses changed with code enforcement.   SPAR Council and the Woman’s Club, who today share many of their membership and leaders, began a campaign to force those who owned the condemned houses to fix them or sell them or else!  It sounds like a good idea until you realize what the “or else” is.  The only “or else” was the code enforcement laws.  Suddenly, houses that were waiting for the right time or buyer were at risk.  Some think this was a good thing.  Except the timing stunk.   

While some of these house did change hands, many others could not.  The prices of condemned houses had been over-inflated.  We could talk about who was to blame for that on another thread, but it is a simple fact. Though values were at an all time high, so were construction costs.  I personally publicly said that this was a bad idea that would result in the loss of many of the buildings, but was ridiculed and was told that this was the best thing for the neighborhood.

Let’s talk about those two houses on 7th street for a moment.  The smaller one to the east - actually address was 27/29 West 7th street,  was a duplex built in the teens that had been pretty badly burned.  Under my ownership (and, I must admit, my ex-wife’s) the house got rebuilt structurally.   About 1/3 or more of the wall  and floor structure, the main beams and about 2/3’s of the roof structures were replaced per current codes.  A new metal roof was installed.  Then financial and personal issues stopped the project.

As soon as the permit was finalized, the house got turned into code enforcement by SPAR Council (per the code enforcement supervisor at the time).  The supervisor admitted that they had to break into the house to determined it was not properly boarded and then again to board it.  All of the notices about this somehow went to the wrong address and it cost me $ 2600.00 to do $500.00 worth of work. The appeal basically said, yeah, we screwed up, pay us the money.   I sold the house.  Unfortunately, the economy tanked before the new owners could secure the funds to get it done and eventually, the lender ended up with the house.  The city kept the house in it’s system and so eventually, and I believe with the blessing of the lender, the house came down. 

Phil’s house had always had a sound roof and while it was broken into many times, it was also re-secured many times.  The grass was cut at least enough to keep code  enforcement at bay, but still, code enforcement (at the request of SPAR Council again per the code enforcement people) needed the house done or sold.  By now, the real estate market was not the greatest and houses were not selling.  However, a buyer was found, but too late to save the house per the city, so down it came.

None of this seems like it is the fault of SPAR Council or the Women’s Club or their leaders.  Except that their idea of moving the houses onto the fast track to demolition, as one SPAR member recently put it, to insure that the house got done or else was destined to insure many houses that should have been saved came down.  Unintended consequences.   People get held responsible for unintended consequences all the time. In fact, these same leaders, Louise and others, often hold those around them accountable for the unintended consequences of their actions. Therefore, so should they themselves be held accountable.

This brings us to the current letter.  It is important because it removes some of the “unintended” to “intended“.  In any context you wish to view it in, it certainly does indicate that Louise, the Executive Director of SPAR Council, whose mission should be the preservation of the best asset any historic neighborhood has, is saying that it is wrong that two people fought and saved two historic houses because Louise herself felt they should come down.  From this revelation, we can also see that she, at the very least, wants to insure that code enforcement can take whatever house she sees fit down in the future.  We can also see that Louise has  “put a fire under” Joel and Lisa in the past.  Due to the subject matter of this letter, it certainly seems as if this fire is to allow for more demolitions rather than saving houses, again, I must add, if Louise thinks the house should come down.

Many know about what I have posted here.  Many have heard complaints about SPAR Council from city officials and even code enforcement for this type of attitude.  Some may dismiss much of this, but almost all of it can be backed up in writing from various documents. What can’t was said not written and as such, must be simply believed or not. Much of it has been admitted by the people involved on both sides of this issue.  There are lists out there made up by the Women’s Club and SPAR Council that lists the houses they tried to insure got done or else.  It would be interesting to see that list and see which houses we lost because of it. 

[civil42806]

quote author=thelakelander link=topic=1911.msg104658#msg104658 date=1256058724]
Wow.  I don't see it how you're presenting it, which goes back to the "context" issue I mentioned earlier this morning.  Its hard to base a theory on anything out of the email that has been presented here.  In reality, SPAR has no true control over code enforcement.  Buildings are falling all over town because the city is putting property owners in a situation where the only financially sound solution (for the owner) is demolition.  Any idea on how the code enforcement departments are run in Savannah and Charleston and how those operations differ from Jacksonville's?  My guess is this has more to do with Jax's blighted building stock being destroyed than SPAR running city hall.

The e-mail which is the subject of this thread is sort of like the icing on the cake.  There is a history here that actually goes back many, many years.  There are many details being left out, this post is very long as it is.

A review of the codes involved show that about a three to four year period is typically what it takes for a condemned house to go from “condemned” to “demo”  within the current system.  As far as I know, these same laws have been basically on the books as they are for decades.  There were some changes a couple of years ago that supposedly made it easier to demo, but I don’t believe they changed the overall system much.

Based on this, we must ask how the houses many Springfield residents currently live in survived?  After all, the house I first lived in had been empty and condemned for about 15 years.  Two other houses I have been involved with that are gone today had been condemned for at least fifteen years for one and twenty years for the other. 

The answer is actually pretty simple.  HSCC.  Historic Springfield Community Council.  Phil Neary was the ED for most (if not all) of this organizations existence.  He fought constantly  with the city to save all of the houses here.  When the city went through one of the department heads that thought all of Springfield should be leveled and started emergency demolitions,  he fought them every step of the way.  The Dorsey-Frank’s house on the East side had been approved for demo, was deemed an unsafe structure that had to come down as an emergency, the equipment was there and Lisa Neary was standing in front of it as the final paperwork arrived saying that a new owner had bought the house and  that the demo must be stopped.  Somehow, through the tenacity of a few, it worked and this house has been on tours, in magazines and is gorgeous.

Most of the time, however, there was an understood “hands off” on the historic houses.  This was not an official law, it just was.   My original house on Pearl street was one of these houses.   So were the ones on 7th street.  No fines, no nasty letters.  At least as long as they were kept neat, boarded up and the grass cut. For most of the time (a few years) that I owned my houses, code enforcement did not enter in to the equation. 

Another thing of note is that SRG made advances to buy these two houses.  The only problem was that if they did, they wanted Phil to at least not fight the demolition of these two houses so that condos could be built on that site.  You see, the lot that was “donated” for the steam boat house on the east side was actually traded for the paved parking lot on West 7th street.  SRG was also surprised that part of the paved area was actually owned by Phil Neary.  Along about now, JSO brought the houses up for demo in front of the HPC.  Perhaps it should be noted that the security fund was in place at this time. No accusation, but a note of interest.

Something else interesting was that the first time that code enforcement took this house to an enforcement board, sitting on the committee was Lisa Simon, who has ties to SRG, who had said they wanted the house torn down.  No accusation, but a note of interest.  Phil knows the system and so wrote a letter or two, got told Ms. Simon would be removed  (don’t know if that happened) and  the boards decision to levy fines was reversed and Phil granted much more time.  It should also be noted that during this time period, the actual code enforcement officer kept saying any progress would be OK, but the board said that wasn’t good enough.

A few years ago,  the status of these old houses changed with code enforcement.   SPAR Council and the Woman’s Club, who today share many of their membership and leaders, began a campaign to force those who owned the condemned houses to fix them or sell them or else!  It sounds like a good idea until you realize what the “or else” is.  The only “or else” was the code enforcement laws.  Suddenly, houses that were waiting for the right time or buyer were at risk.  Some think this was a good thing.  Except the timing stunk.   

While some of these house did change hands, many others could not.  The prices of condemned houses had been over-inflated.  We could talk about who was to blame for that on another thread, but it is a simple fact. Though values were at an all time high, so were construction costs.  I personally publicly said that this was a bad idea that would result in the loss of many of the buildings, but was ridiculed and was told that this was the best thing for the neighborhood.

Let’s talk about those two houses on 7th street for a moment.  The smaller one to the east - actually address was 27/29 West 7th street,  was a duplex built in the teens that had been pretty badly burned.  Under my ownership (and, I must admit, my ex-wife’s) the house got rebuilt structurally.   About 1/3 or more of the wall  and floor structure, the main beams and about 2/3’s of the roof structures were replaced per current codes.  A new metal roof was installed.  Then financial and personal issues stopped the project.

As soon as the permit was finalized, the house got turned into code enforcement by SPAR Council (per the code enforcement supervisor at the time).  The supervisor admitted that they had to break into the house to determined it was not properly boarded and then again to board it.  All of the notices about this somehow went to the wrong address and it cost me $ 2600.00 to do $500.00 worth of work. The appeal basically said, yeah, we screwed up, pay us the money.   I sold the house.  Unfortunately, the economy tanked before the new owners could secure the funds to get it done and eventually, the lender ended up with the house.  The city kept the house in it’s system and so eventually, and I believe with the blessing of the lender, the house came down. 

Phil’s house had always had a sound roof and while it was broken into many times, it was also re-secured many times.  The grass was cut at least enough to keep code  enforcement at bay, but still, code enforcement (at the request of SPAR Council again per the code enforcement people) needed the house done or sold.  By now, the real estate market was not the greatest and houses were not selling.  However, a buyer was found, but too late to save the house per the city, so down it came.

None of this seems like it is the fault of SPAR Council or the Women’s Club or their leaders.  Except that their idea of moving the houses onto the fast track to demolition, as one SPAR member recently put it, to insure that the house got done or else was destined to insure many houses that should have been saved came down.  Unintended consequences.   People get held responsible for unintended consequences all the time. In fact, these same leaders, Louise and others, often hold those around them accountable for the unintended consequences of their actions. Therefore, so should they themselves be held accountable.

This brings us to the current letter.  It is important because it removes some of the “unintended” to “intended“.  In any context you wish to view it in, it certainly does indicate that Louise, the Executive Director of SPAR Council, whose mission should be the preservation of the best asset any historic neighborhood has, is saying that it is wrong that two people fought and saved two historic houses because Louise herself felt they should come down.  From this revelation, we can also see that she, at the very least, wants to insure that code enforcement can take whatever house she sees fit down in the future.  We can also see that Louise has  “put a fire under” Joel and Lisa in the past.  Due to the subject matter of this letter, it certainly seems as if this fire is to allow for more demolitions rather than saving houses, again, I must add, if Louise thinks the house should come down.

Many know about what I have posted here.  Many have heard complaints about SPAR Council from city officials and even code enforcement for this type of attitude.  Some may dismiss much of this, but almost all of it can be backed up in writing from various documents. What can’t was said not written and as such, must be simply believed or not. Much of it has been admitted by the people involved on both sides of this issue.  There are lists out there made up by the Women’s Club and SPAR Council that lists the houses they tried to insure got done or else.  It would be interesting to see that list and see which houses we lost because of it. 
[/quote]

Anyone read this stuff?

[civil42806]

ummmmm probably not, just because its viewed doesn't mean its read.  Just ask Faye

[strider]

I made a very long post that gives some of the back ground information about the preservation of and lack of preservation of the houses in Springfield.  While many here do not believe the e-mail from Louise to be as definitive as I do, I feel it is because they either feel the need to defend Louise no matter what, agree with her stance or do not have the back ground facts that makes this letter just the icing on the cake.

HSCC proved in the past that a community organization could lessen the destruction of historic houses by code enforcement, Louise’s E-mail simply proves that one can also help with the destruction of the historic homes.  Fact, not fiction., nor conjecture.

[danno]

Kids.....if you just did not pay your dues to SPAR......those suckers would wither away and die off! They clearly have their own agenda and program and you guys and your houses are not part of it! If you can't form a counter organization then force them to come to grips with reality! I know it is easier said then done but if you have enough bodies to counter them then you may be able to get something done!

Havent paid a dime in years.

[Miss Fixit]

I'd like to see the entire email and also know more about its context.  Will I find that information if I read through this old thread?

[strider]

There were a couple of follow-up e-mails about this issue that were posted as well. 

You can certainly read the entire thread, the first 4 or so pages are actually pretty much still on subject.

Bottom line, no way in hell should an ED of a community org in a historic preservation district side with the city to tear down even one single house.  Knowing Louise as I do and from personal experience, this is the real Louise and if she thinks it should come down for her friend or her favorite developer, then is needs to come down. 

Actually the history behind the more recent issues with the city taking houses started because some (SPAR Council and others) decided that punitive penalties would force the bad out of town owners, poor owners (those that couldn’t get the house done in some quick amount of time or just get financing) or investors who listened to the same realtors who were selling SRG homes and wanted "too much for theirs"  to fix their houses or else.  This meant putting the houses “into the system and headed for demo” as this would force the houses to get done or sold to someone who would do them.  Of course, they also would get demoed as the economy tripped on itself and here we are, many houses poorer.

Prior to this, people actually stood in front of bulldozers to save a falling down house.  But the Springfield resident and SPAR Board member who is a current HPC representative did say that she though all of the houses worth doing in Springfield had been done so, hey Miss Fixit, I guess that house you just bought isn’t worth fixing.

[Miss Fixit]

Sorry for sounding like an idiot Stephen - when I first accessed this thread only half of the email loaded.

Strider, there are probably a lot of people who would think I'm crazy for trying to bring my new project house back to life and although I consider myself a pretty staunch preservationist I have to agree that some of our Springfield houses are beyond saving. 

However, this email makes me very uncomfortable.  I'll read the rest of the thread.....

[sheclown]

You should have seen some of the houses Strider, Phil Neary and I have "saved". 

That old wood's strength is breathtaking. 

[MusicMan]

There are hundreds of "structures" in Springfield that need to be torn down. When you have a wood frame home
that goes 30 to 50 years with no meaningful maintenance, whatever is left of it is completely useless. I know Rich Vinas. He is a General contractor who loves Springfield and has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars there.  He loves historic homes and neighborhoods, and has done a lot to make Springfield better. I think I know the property that he is trying to have demolished. It is utterly useless and unsalvagable. If he is allowed to replace it, it will be with a beautiful, historically appropriate structure which will add value to the neighborhood. Historic buildings are great, but there are so many in Springfield beyond saving. And now, the prices for the derelict properties has gotten to where contractors are willing to buy IF they can tear down and rebuild, new, histirocally appropriate structures. I say tell McEachern to get out of the way, unless he can produce a buyer who is willing to salvage the unsalvagable structures.

[sheclown]

As building contractors, you should have seen some of the houses Strider, Phil Neary and I have "saved".

That old wood's strength is breathtaking. 

Each house needs to be evaluated by a structural engineer who specializes in historic structures before demolition.

No one ought to "get out of the way."

[MusicMan]

Well, there are so many horrible structures all over Springfield where folks went in with great intentions,
did a gruesome job of restoration, then walked away when they raelized how much time money and energy went
into the fix-up. I've traveled extensively and cannot remember any other place in America like Springfield: so close to downtown, yet so tragically "left behind."  99% of the time, when you see a wonderful old neighborhood like this
so close to the urban core, it is among the most desirable areas in town. For Springfiled to be in the shape it is in
requires decades of neglect. Please don't get me wrong, I love the place and see huge potential there, but I often want to cry when I drive around in Springfield.

[strider]

There are hundreds of "structures" in Springfield that need to be torn down.

Your real name isn’t Louise is it?

When you have a wood frame home that goes 30 to 50 years with no meaningful maintenance, whatever is left of it is completely useless.

The above statement is very much false.

I know Rich Vinas. He is a General contractor who loves Springfield and has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars there. He loves historic homes and neighborhoods, and has done a lot to make Springfield better. I think I know the property that he is trying to have demolished. It is utterly useless and unsalvagable. If he is allowed to replace it, it will be with a beautiful, historically appropriate structure which will add value to the neighborhood.

I also have looked at the house in question in the e-mail.  Basically, and without having the ability to go inside, it is indeed salvageable and does have a unique porch arrangement. Even if it is not worth saving due to something I can’t see from the outside, it does seem that it should at least have to go through the proper process, which, as indicated by the HPC and Joel’s department, it had not. In my opinion, if Mr. Vinas does indeed love SPringfield as you say he does, I would think he would want the same.

Historic buildings are great, but there are so many in Springfield beyond saving.

And you would know this because you are an expert in what can and can not be saved? Or would you agree that just perhaps the decision should be actually left to the experts?

And now, the prices for the derelict properties has gotten to where contractors are willing to buy IF they can tear down and rebuild, new, historically appropriate structures.

Actually, it would be counter productive for any developer to buy a lot with an existing structure on it  when the empty lots are very available and the prices have dropped just as dramatically.

I say tell McEachern to get out of the way, unless he can produce a buyer who is willing to salvage the unsalvagable structures.

And this statement makes you sir, the very reason we are losing so many houses. Thankfully, Joel is in the decisions making position and you are not.