Potential Demolition in Avondale

[urbanlibertarian]

Those gated communities are created with deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants.  It's one thing to choose to buy where they have such restrictions and another to have them imposed on properties that happen to be located in a neighborhood that becomes historic even if the designation is popular.  I don't think this applies to the property in this thread because it was purchased after the historic designation.

[second_pancake]

Agreed, UL...on all points.

[Kay]

Give me a councilman any day who is willing to apply the law.  That's all we ask. 

[mtraininjax]

While he said he doesn't like historic districts, he also said that Riverside Avondale is a historic district voted on by the residents and enacted into law by the Council and there are rules and laws that now govern it. 

Kay, let's vote on historic district again, right here, right now, after speaking with past Presidents of RAP and fellow Rap members, there are many who believe, as I do, that RAP would fail to pass again.

Keep up this obnoxious behavior with owners of properies and we will start a revolution of pitchforks and signatures. Ya'll need to back off, you have had your say, now let the chips fall where they may.

[Kay]

You are confusing RAP and the historic district.  RAP is a non-profit organization that has existed since 1974.  Check out the video on our website to see the value RAP has provided over the years.  The historic district was created in 1998.

The fact that Riverside Avondale is a historic district has added value to all of our properties.  You obviously disagree with that.  In opposing the demolition of a historic structure, RAP is carrying out its mission--nothing more and nothing less than that.

[fsu813]

being a historic district is actually a desirable title, mtrainjax. perhaps you should research that a bit.



wait.....a....sec....has any seen Joost, Holt, & mtrainjax in the same room, at the same time?

[Dog Walker]

Joost was not saying that he disliked historic districts in particular.  What he said is that he was uncomfortable telling people what to do with their property.  I'm sure that the would say the same about HOA's.  He actually did the principled thing by following the law and said that the law had to overrule his personal opinion.

Tip of the hat to Councilman Joost!  Wedgie to Councilman Holt!

[grimss]

Those gated communities are created with deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants.  It's one thing to choose to buy where they have such restrictions and another to have them imposed on properties that happen to be located in a neighborhood that becomes historic even if the designation is popular.  I don't think this applies to the property in this thread because it was purchased after the historic designation.

I think perhaps what you meant to say is you don't think historic district status applies to the property because it was purchased BEFORE the historic designation.

However, even if the bungalow's owner did not personally vote for the preservation ordinance that instituted historic district status in R/A, the fact is that in the US the majority rules and the laws that are passed with popular consent apply equally to all, whether or not you agree with them.  

Maybe you didn't vote for the FL Legislature's proposal to reduce property taxes in the state (knowing it was a transparently silly piece of legislation that wouldn't actually do what it claimed to do), but it passed anyway and now we all have to live with its legacy of budget shortfalls and underfunded schools. If you owned property in FL before it became a state, come 1845 you were still stuck with living in a Union you might have preferred not to join, paying taxes you didn't vote to impose on yourself.

Springfield and Riverside Avondale are legally constituted historic districts, with all the laws and protections accorded therein. RAP isn't fighting this proposed demolition because the organization is on some sort of power trip, it's fighting because Harden, through his actions, is trying to gut the ordinance.

[Miss Fixit]

You are confusing RAP and the historic district.  RAP is a non-profit organization that has existed since 1974.  Check out the video on our website to see the value RAP has provided over the years.  The historic district was created in 1998

The fact that Riverside Avondale is a historic district has added value to all of our properties.  You obviously disagree with that.  In opposing the demolition of a historic structure, RAP is carrying out its mission--nothing more and nothing less than that.

I lived in Avondale when it became a historic district.  I supported the designation then and support it now.  I completely agree that RAP should fight the demolition of this property, if only to preserve the effect of the historic designation on the neighborhood as a whole.  However, I do understand the property owner's frustration in this situation.  His bungalow, while charming, is not particularly architecturally significant.  His property would be worth far more with a bigger house sitting on it.  So I have to disagree with the statement that historic district designation adds value to ALL resident properties.  There will always be some property owners who may in fact be financially harmed by the designation.  And that's one of the differences between a Queen's Harbor HOA and historic district designation.  The Queen's Harbor HOA is specifically designed to protect the value of a bunch of homogenous properties by maintaining that homogenity. The historic designation promotes a different sort of value - the value of historic preservation, which may not always be financially advantageous.  Many, but not all, of the homeowners in a historic district will benefit financially from the designation.  I think that may be why Councilman Joost is uncomfortable with historic districts.

[grimss]

Miss FixIt--well-reasoned post. I appreciate your perspective.

[stjr]

How are historic district restrictions/controls different from those created by zoning classes or building codes or sign/noise ordinances, etc.?  Let's face it, part of being a society, is having some degree of controls and regulations that sacrifice the individual good for the common good.  Historic district rules are but just a single slice of this approach and shouldn't be singled out. 

If one wants to be philosophically true and pure, they would resist just about every law or regulation on the books in our society.  I know we have some libertarians lurking here, but I don't think they will be prevailing anytime soon.    

[buckethead]

How are historic district restrictions/controls different from those created by zoning classes or building codes or sign/noise ordinances, etc.?  Let's face it, part of being a society, is having some degree of controls and regulations that sacrifice the individual good for the common good.  Historic district rules are but just a single slice of this approach and shouldn't be singled out. 

If one wants to be philosophically true and pure, they would resist just about every law or regulation on the books in our society.  I know we have some libertarians lurking here, but I don't think they will be prevailing anytime soon.    

This is the crux of the political debate at all levels. Some few, will demand absolutes, while most people are reasonable and realize that any absolute ideology in practice will lead to tyranny and/or chaos. Libertarians, by and large, are not absolutists. Most are actually constitutionalists. (read: innumrated limits on the power of the Federal Government. Translation: Laws, not chaos.)

Property rights are a legitimate concern, even in historic districts.

[Kay]

/quote]

I lived in Avondale when it became a historic district.  I supported the designation then and support it now.  I completely agree that RAP should fight the demolition of this property, if only to preserve the effect of the historic designation on the neighborhood as a whole.  However, I do understand the property owner's frustration in this situation.  His bungalow, while charming, is not particularly architecturally significant.  His property would be worth far more with a bigger house sitting on it.  So I have to disagree with the statement that historic district designation adds value to ALL resident properties.  There will always be some property owners who may in fact be financially harmed by the designation.  And that's one of the differences between a Queen's Harbor HOA and historic district designation.  The Queen's Harbor HOA is specifically designed to protect the value of a bunch of homogenous properties by maintaining that homogenity. The historic designation promotes a different sort of value - the value of historic preservation, which may not always be financially advantageous.  Many, but not all, of the homeowners in a historic district will benefit financially from the designation.  I think that may be why Councilman Joost is uncomfortable with historic districts.

You make a very fair point.  Collectively I think we've all gained. 

[Miss Fixit]

I agree - collectively (and by that, I mean the entire city of Jacksonville) we have all gained.

[JAM]

I have one comment to Miss Fixit's point.  The bungalow and its real property HAVE benefited from the historic district designation, as they are worth much more now than before the district was established, even with "just" the bungalow there.  All properties do benefit from the historic district status.  Just because some owners may feel that they could get more value out of a larger McMansion then the original house does not mean that the original house has not benefitted from historic district status.  There is no doubt that its value has risen along with everyone else's.  After all, Riverside Avondale fought back urban decay and is now a desireable neighborhood for a reason -- because it's an historic district.