Patterson Apartments: They're Coming Down

[Timkin]

This needs to be stopped . Not just for Springfield but for any Historic Building. Too many are already gone, so many are still endangered, and it seems only a handful of citizens get this and really want it stopped.

[movedsouth]

they are gone. but well, who cares. great empty lots. maybe Shands can get more parking now.

[Ralph W]

I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield.  Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved.  Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed.  Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing.  A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely.  As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight.  That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.

What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes.  Without these, all of our property value will decline.

Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over?  Because being in a historic district has value. 

There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.

You don't suppose someone at the Federal level would be willing to drop a load of bricks on the city and property owners for violating the Federally designated historic district?  Whos ear would you drop a bug into to get some interest where there is also some clout?

[movedsouth]

Is the cooperation of the owner required to register a building as a landmark?

[ChriswUfGator]

I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield.  Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved.  Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed.  Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing.  A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely.  As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight.  That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.

What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes.  Without these, all of our property value will decline.

Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over?  Because being in a historic district has value. 

There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.

You don't suppose someone at the Federal level would be willing to drop a load of bricks on the city and property owners for violating the Federally designated historic district?  Whos ear would you drop a bug into to get some interest where there is also some clout?

The district is registered, but the individual houses in it are not. You might have an argument that, once you reach a certain number of demolitions, the district has been destroyed. The easiest thing to do to stop rolling fines and/or a demolition, depending on the circumstances, is for the owner of the subject property to sue COJ. But that's a catch-22, because if they had the resources to do that, they would have probably cured the violations and it would be a moot point.

But an alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them. Stephen Dare knows where all sorts of history happened, often that is sufficient. You can most certainly register an individual house if it has historic significance, this is my family home;



Once it is registered, you would be playing by a different set of rules. There are application criteria and a review, I am familiar with the process. I am also familiar with the consequences of altering the property. Florida may have a requirement that NRHP nominations go through the local HPC, at which point it is a very good thing Lisa Simon is now off that board. Another option is to band together to fill the 3 open HPC seats with neighborhood-friendly people who wouldn't approve bogus demolitions. That option costs nothing.

[avs]

The district is registered, but the individual houses in it are not. You might have an argument that, once you reach a certain number of demolitions, the district has been destroyed

That's what I was trying to say

an alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them.

I like this idea too.  I don't know what it entails and I don't think it has been tried before.

[ChriswUfGator]

an alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them.

I like this idea too.  I don't know what it entails and I don't think it has been tried before.

It's been tried before, and works well. My house is on the National Register because a proposed bridge project was going to take it through eminent domain and demolish it to make room for the approach. It is a historic house and definitely qualified for registration anyway, but we never would have done it had it not been for the threat of demolition. Several neighbors did the same thing, at which point the city scrapped the bridge. Which was just pork, it wasn't needed anyway.

But it's certainly been done before, and works like a charm.

[ChriswUfGator]

Is the cooperation of the owner required to register a building as a landmark?

Not necessarily, often properties are nominated over the objection of their actual owners. To see a case study in this, look at what all happened with the Bridge of Lions. For an individual house, having an actively dissenting voice during the process wouldn't make things easy, it would be better if everyone were onboard.

[movedsouth]

So are there any lawyers out there willing to donate some time to help owners that are not able to bank role a law suite like that?

[ChriswUfGator]

Maybe JALA could do something? It's not just time that would need to be donated, it costs real money for filing fees and service, court reporters, etc. Even if you're just trying to stop a demo through an administrative appeal within COJ, you'd need to hire an engineer as an expert to rebut COJ's engineering report. It really adds up, you're talking thousands. Time is one thing, the actual costs are another. Depending on the circumstances, if other people were also willing to volunteer their time in the right capacities, or if people could donate to cover the actual costs, then it could work.

And if the facts are right, you could certainly do a suit over a completed wrongful demolition on a contingency basis, because then there is a way to recover those costs. But if you're attempting to stop an impending demolition through a dec action, then all of this is really a lot of money that you don't recover if you win. Most of these property owners don't have any money or they would have cured the violations already. And the ones who do have money always seem to be the ones with ulterior motives, like the good doctor, or SRG, e.g. the type of people who for years have been the ones showing up before the HPC begging to have their own property demolished. They're certainly not interested in helping.

It's really a pickle, because there are so many properties involved at one time. This would never happen in Riverside because RAP would never allow it. But in Springfield, SPAR has been in bed with demolishing the historic structures, actively encouraging it behind the scenes, for a decade. Now they've allegedly stopped (the truth of which claim is debatable), but after a decade of this mess there are still a ton of demolitions in the pipeline. There is really no easy solution to this. If this mothballing proposal doesn't get approved, then I think this will get worse before it gets better.

There are 3 open seats on the HPC presently. The HPC has the ultimate authority to approve or deny demolitions.

1 + 1 = 2 here, people...we need to make sure those seats go to the right people...

[avs]

Whatever happened with Joe's application?

[ChriswUfGator]

Whatever happened with Joe's application?

That's a good question.

I believe they are required to fill an open seat within 60 or 90 days (I don't remember which off the top of my head), absent a lack of applicants. If he submitted his application and it has been more than 60 days, then he is entitled to some answers. He is certainly qualified to serve, he's actually a licensed contractor. And we know there are open seats...

[Debbie Thompson]

Going back to individual registration, Mike Trautmann told me one could register any house in the historic district individually because it is an historic district.  If that's the case, perhaps it doesn't have to be individually historically significant or architecturally significant.  It may be worth looking into.  At one time, he had the paperwork to do it.

From http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/faq.html - Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register.       *****However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria.*******

Properties are nominated to the National Register by the State Historic Preservation Officer of the State in which the property is located,
Florida
Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Historical Resources

R.A. Gray Building
500 S. Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
850-488-1480
jmatthews@mail.dos.state.fl

[Springfield Chicken]

I don't honestly remember who told me this but as I understand it, you can't single out an individual property within a historic district for separate historic designation.

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't honestly remember who told me this but as I understand it, you can't single out an individual property within a historic district for separate historic designation.

You can if you can show it is independently historically significant. District registrations and individual registrations don't really have much to do with each other. It's the individual registration that provides protection, district registrations do nothing to protect the individual properties. But there is no reason you can't have both.