QuotePlans to demolish and to renovate the old school just off Interstate 95 have gone back and forth through the past few years. Most recently, Foundation Holding, which owned the property, wanted to convert the 1917 building into apartments for seniors.
The company still wants to do that, but it doesn't own it anymore. It just owns all the property around it. Doug Milne, who represents Foundation Holding, said the company consciously didn't pay its taxes on the building in order to give it up.
"The liability exposure was just too great," Milne said. "The constant repair work and vandalism correction was too much, so we let it go. It was a tough decision to make, but it was a practical one."
Tarpon IV LLC, based in Aventura, bought the 44,000-square-foot building earlier this year for an $86,600 tax deed. Tarpon has purchased 39 Jacksonville properties through tax deeds and many more elsewhere in Florida.
But in addition to still owning most of the property on the block bordered by I-95, Chelsea, College and Roselle streets, Foundation Holding kept a narrow strip of land completely surrounding the building.
That way, Milne said, any development will require both owners. But he hasn't heard from Tarpon IV.
Foundation's plans call for 33 apartments in the building and another 100 on the property next to it, with a price tag of about $18 million.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-11-08/story/shopping-center-plans-spring-fall
Is this new news ?
Yes. And its scary.
This tax lien purchase happened almost 6 months ago.
Sounds sketchy.
Quote from: Noone on November 08, 2010, 08:37:01 AM
Yes. And its scary.
To say the least.
Code Enforcement has scheduled a "Special Master" hearing for Annie on 11/18 @ 10 a.m. I have no clue what that means, but if I can find a way to go to it I will.
Sounds like they trying to get it torn done and not taking the blame. Does Riverside need more Senior Living?? smh at that idea.
I talked to the representative of new owner and took him on a tour of the school within a few weeks of the investment firm purchasing the deed for back taxes.
He was completely stunned by the school; both the quality and soundness of the construction and the destruction of the interior. They had no idea what they were buying.
They have no plans for the building themselves. That is not the business they are in. They will try to find a buyer with a plan.
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 08, 2010, 10:50:09 AM
Sounds like they trying to get it torn done and not taking the blame. Does Riverside need more Senior Living?? smh at that idea.
The investment firm that has it now does not intend to tear it down. The land under it isn't worth the cost.
The real question should be how Doug Milne was able to have the school cut out of the existing property that was part of the school originally. No one can do anything with the school without buying the property that he still holds. Slick!
Dog Walker.......sounds like a tax dodge and then some..............I wonder what "Timkins" take on this is?
Not a tax dodge, but a way to get rid of the liability of the school without having it effect the remainder of the property. Wonder how he got the re-plat done.
Is Timkin aware of this?? I figured he'd be blowing this thread up. This sounds like bad news.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 08, 2010, 02:25:49 PM
Is Timkin aware of this?? I figured he'd be blowing this thread up. This sounds like bad news.
I'm sure he is by now. I've emailed him.
Timkin is aware of all of this ...and I know as much as any of you know. At one point, I had Jonathan Politano , the owner of Gulf Group Holdings ( the parent company of Tarpon) on the phone... I asked if he would be willing to put any money into the School. The answer he directly gave me was yes... Later I received a call from David Egozi, his agent..who was rather pissed, because I presume he thought I subverted him and went to Politano directly. That was NOT the case.. it happened that Politano answered the phone. He was abrupt and basicly told me they wouldnt put a dime in to the building. So there you have it. If anyone would like to contact Gulf Group, feel free . (305-913-3333) or you can email David Egozi : Degozi@g-g-h.com OR you can call and ask to speak to either of them.. they have since refused to speak to me.
My take on this: It cannot be good.
As a footnote , I might add that a ton of younger people willing to participate in the cleanup effort, have been being put off on an answer because I cannot get these people to return calls or emails.. It is even more frustrating than before, if that was possible.. With One owner owning the building and the land under it and another , basicly landlocking the building by keeping all the property around it, IMO it will be nothing short of a MIRACLE FROM GOD, DIRECTLY that it is ever saved, spared , and reused.
Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on November 08, 2010, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 08, 2010, 02:25:49 PM
Is Timkin aware of this?? I figured he'd be blowing this thread up. This sounds like bad news.
I'm sure he is by now. I've emailed him.
I was aware, but thank you , Heather for keeping me in the know ;) U rock !!!
MAn this is sad and pure Khasos. We should have never let this building go into such despiar. And the fact nobodys want to anything into it is kind of sad. I almost to point of saying, "tear it down". That seems like the most logical thing right being that NO ONE wants to do anything to the property. It is such a beautiful structure and would love to see in renovated. However, Im starting to think its NEVER going to happen.
While I understand duvaldude08's sentiment, I think it is best that even if saving the building is impossible, demolition is not the best answer.
The best answer would be to let the building deteriorate day by day, little by little. That way it will serve as an icon of just what kind of city Jacksonville has become, or maybe, always has been.
The group that acquired the building via the tax lien sale is not interested in rehabbing it... they are property flippers.
Seeing as though Milne's group replatted the parcel, interested buyers would basically be held hostage by him with any plans they have with the building... it dissolves him from the costly building liability and makes his potential profit much greater. Shrewd move. The old girl is going to need a special kind of buyer/developer.
The building still has great potential, IMO
At this point , I would settle for a 3 wall facade-ectomy of the School.. That way, the most important architectural features of the School are preserved... incorporate this into a new structure....
In my heart, I do not believe this will be the outcome.
It boils down to economics... Someone would have to acquire the building and the land from , now, 2 different entities. My bet is the purchase price would be at least 2 million just to do that. Then the renovation costs...10 million conservatively. Then what to do with the building... something has to recoup these enormous costs. When you look around and see so much vacant commercial property, and more closing everyday, its pretty disheartening.
As to the cleanup effort, Im simply not physically able to do it alone anymore. And that is disheartening.
Until it falls, I remain with hope that an answer will come forth.. I humbly suggest (only) to each and every one of you who wish to see it spared, to contact the owner..contact your council people. At least lets get some more time on its side, as the group from Springfield are doing so well with the historic structures there :)
This is really not good.. I was not expecting this to ever come, but in a world like this, things are inevitable. I hope a miracle comes around, god please bring one. I love this school very much, it was the first thing to catch me when I moved to Jacksonville 6 years ago. Everything about the school is just amazing. The architecture most of all. The inside, pretty quiet from the ugly and monstrous highway in front of it.
THIS CITY HAS MONEY!! But choose to spend it on pointless things that we do NOT need!! Streets that need no repair? Sidewalks with a small hole? Parks with nothing wrong with them? Or how about AN OVER BUDGET COURTHOUSE?!?! That will forever look disgusting to me.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 08, 2010, 03:56:35 PM
MAn this is sad and pure Khasos. We should have never let this building go into such despiar. And the fact nobodys want to anything into it is kind of sad. I almost to point of saying, "tear it down". That seems like the most logical thing right being that NO ONE wants to do anything to the property. It is such a beautiful structure and would love to see in renovated. However, Im starting to think its NEVER going to happen.
Duvaldude ..... "WE" did not let this building go into such disrepair. "WE" never owned the building. It belonged to DCSB until the late 70s ...According to Doug Milne, The building was in need of roof replacement at the time of acquisition. Seems to me it would have been A HELL OF ALOT less expensive to maintain it, by doing the repairs then..and boarding more securely than was done so as to preserve the building..much like we see many vacant automobile dealerships around town ,done. For whatever reason, he/the Ida Stevens Foundation./Foundation Holdings IV NEVER (that I can identify on the building) put one dime of money towards any reasonable building maintenance ...IE Roof to keep water out. That was key...What we look at today is a domino effect of not putting the money into keeping the building up. over time it would have been significantly less...Today "WE" face a monumental amount of money to save it. Vandals have done their share of damage to the building....but Vandals are not the reason the Auditorium roof became part of the Auditorium Floor in 2000. and the decay continues. Where I do see that Mr Milne /Foundation Holdings probably spent significant money was in the continual and in vain task of securing the building.....That very point brings us to where we stand with it now.. NOW that it has a different owner, IMO even though code enforcement "looked the other way" for decades, the "New" owner will pay the piper...
I am certain that if Tarpon knew they were buying a School Building that was structurally ,fairly sound, but in need of Millions in repairs and it was completely landlocked, they probably would have passed on the purchase...but the price was too attractive.....or so they thought ,until they had all of the details.
To me , one of two possibilites now face them: A: They will have no choice but to bring the building into compliance...whatever compliance means. Because bringing it into compliance would help dramaticly with its ability to market, this is the most hopeful Avenue.
OR B: They will be forced to demolish it. I have no idea what that would cost , but am fairly certain , it would cost far less than to bring the building into compliance. DW is correct.. The Land Value below the building probably is not greater than the cost of demo and its certainly not greater than the cost of rehab... Tarpon has probably had many more gains than losses in their purchases... This one , I think will be a loss for them.
If I had to spend the time I have on the School over again, knowing what I now know, I still would have done it... It is a beautiful , incredible building. Its just unfortunate that the almighty dollar prevails and economics are cost-prohibitive as far as I can tell, in this instance.
Im sure sooner than later, Time will tell. and whatever the outcome, I am at peace with it.
Quote from: Timkin on November 09, 2010, 02:18:18 AM
I'm sure sooner than later, Time will tell. and whatever the outcome, I am at peace with it.
C'Mon Man!!!!!!! JACKSONVILLE
Timkin, I feel for you man. I'll always remember the 1000's of posts that you had on Jaxoutloud on Annie Lytle. I was close to making a cleanup to just meet you and appreciate your efforts on a real piece of history.
This legal maneuver to land lock the building just cries out that a new law needs to be enacted called the "Let me buy a strip of land around a building whether its a foot circumference or 20' then be forever forgiven when the new people buy it in foreclosure and will now pay me super big bucks for all the fines and taxes that I didn't have to pay." C'mon Man!
How to invest in Jacksonville's Future.
This should highlight to everyone the magnitude Of Shipyards/Landmar and the immediate reason why the 680' Promised Downtown Public Pier needs to be separate. The Public Trust has been destroyed in this community.
Timkin, whatever the outcome you should be at peace. Disappointed yes. Then again its still standing. It hasn't been blown up.
I feel you pain Tim! Something that occured to my was .....just how the property was basically split up? This smacks of something that someone like Paul Harden would be involved in. Maybe not since he is not cheap but that property had to have been rezoned for this to take place? Not really sure how one could do something like that without a zoning change being approved by the Zoning Commision!
Zoning would not be a factor in whatever was done from a platting/legal aspect. The USE of the property has not changed. I am wondering how a tract of land can be platted that is land-locked. Although, a building can be sold without the land underneath being sold (ie The Landing). That wasn't the case here though, the land underneath did convey with the building, yet the parcel is landlocked?
Any attorneys with answers on that?
Quote from: Timkin on November 09, 2010, 02:18:18 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 08, 2010, 03:56:35 PM
MAn this is sad and pure Khasos. We should have never let this building go into such despiar. And the fact nobodys want to anything into it is kind of sad. I almost to point of saying, "tear it down". That seems like the most logical thing right being that NO ONE wants to do anything to the property. It is such a beautiful structure and would love to see in renovated. However, Im starting to think its NEVER going to happen.
Duvaldude ..... "WE" did not let this building go into such disrepair. "WE" never owned the building. It belonged to DCSB until the late 70s ...According to Doug Milne, The building was in need of roof replacement at the time of acquisition. Seems to me it would have been A HELL OF ALOT less expensive to maintain it, by doing the repairs then..and boarding more securely than was done so as to preserve the building..much like we see many vacant automobile dealerships around town ,done. For whatever reason, he/the Ida Stevens Foundation./Foundation Holdings IV NEVER (that I can identify on the building) put one dime of money towards any reasonable building maintenance ...IE Roof to keep water out. That was key...What we look at today is a domino effect of not putting the money into keeping the building up. over time it would have been significantly less...Today "WE" face a monumental amount of money to save it. Vandals have done their share of damage to the building....but Vandals are not the reason the Auditorium roof became part of the Auditorium Floor in 2000. and the decay continues. Where I do see that Mr Milne /Foundation Holdings probably spent significant money was in the continual and in vain task of securing the building.....That very point brings us to where we stand with it now.. NOW that it has a different owner, IMO even though code enforcement "looked the other way" for decades, the "New" owner will pay the piper...
I am certain that if Tarpon knew they were buying a School Building that was structurally ,fairly sound, but in need of Millions in repairs and it was completely landlocked, they probably would have passed on the purchase...but the price was too attractive.....or so they thought ,until they had all of the details.
To me , one of two possibilites now face them: A: They will have no choice but to bring the building into compliance...whatever compliance means. Because bringing it into compliance would help dramaticly with its ability to market, this is the most hopeful Avenue.
OR B: They will be forced to demolish it. I have no idea what that would cost , but am fairly certain , it would cost far less than to bring the building into compliance. DW is correct.. The Land Value below the building probably is not greater than the cost of demo and its certainly not greater than the cost of rehab... Tarpon has probably had many more gains than losses in their purchases... This one , I think will be a loss for them.
If I had to spend the time I have on the School over again, knowing what I now know, I still would have done it... It is a beautiful , incredible building. Its just unfortunate that the almighty dollar prevails and economics are cost-prohibitive as far as I can tell, in this instance.
Im sure sooner than later, Time will tell. and whatever the outcome, I am at peace with it.
You pretty much said the same thing I said in different terms. They are either going to do something with it (what ever something is) or demolish it.
Here's a clearer look at the property lines.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vMtOYZhG17s/TNloOWnThMI/AAAAAAAAAMk/0Sl3d330QAE/s1600/PS4+property.JPG)
Maybe they platted it like a townhouse development, with a separate designation for the building footprint and the "open" area.
This is one for the property appraisers office. two separate tax bills. Two separate stormwater bills. When was it done?
I think that the split violates Section 654 of the City's ordinance code (the subdivision code). It starts out:
"No land shall be subdivided nor a building or structure or a part thereof constructed in an area that is subdivided after the effective date of this Chapter, unless the subdivision conforms to the provisions of this Chapter." (654.104)
It goes on to say that
"The subdivision shall provide each lot with satisfactory and permanent access to a public street or approved private street." and also "The lot size, width, depth, shape and orientation and the minimum building setback lines shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. Lot arrangement and design shall be such that all lots will provide satisfactory and desirable building sites." (654.126)
Further, "No plat or plan of a subdivision of land shall be recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court until the plat has received final approval in accordance with this Chapter." and "No person or his agent owning land within a proposed subdivision shall transfer or sell or agree to sell a lot or parcel of land located within a subdivision by reference to, by exhibition or by any other use of a plat of the subdivision before the plat has been approved by ordinance and has been recorded, unless exempted by this Chapter." (654.139)
Violation "shall constitute a class C offense and, in addition, the offender shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Each day the violation continues or recurs shall be considered a separate offense."
I really think that the General Counsel's office ought to be asked whether this was a subdivision of land as defined by the Code.
You can search the code here: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12174&stateId=9&stateName=Florida (http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12174&stateId=9&stateName=Florida)
Type "654" into the "Search" box and it will bring up the ordinance.
You can rest assured that Milne did his homework before doing this...and even if it is discovered that he did not, how is it going to change the condition of the building? It went from having an owner who didnt spend a dime on preserving it, to an out-of-town owner who hasnt spent a dime on preserving it, and may actually expect to flip it to someone else. I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind buying a landlocked building. In my heart I believe this action was deliberate so that demolition is forced , and Milne will not have to "look" like the bad guy.
IMO he should have unloaded the entire tract of properties years ago to someone who would have been willing to do something to save it. I PERSONALLY referred to him , a developer , out of Atlanta, who develops Schoolhouses into lofts.. At that time he was still in a contract with the nice lady from St. Augustine who wanted to demolish the building. He walked away from it because im certain , between the two of these people, if they were'nt going to successfully make it work, they were going to make sure noone else did, and they most likely inflated the purchase price to some unbelievable amount , or flat out refused to sell.
There could have been a feasible solution to this long ago, but Milne, wasn't having that unless he could keep his hands in the pie, as he continues to do. I have stacks of Times Union articles where preservationists lament neglect, while he says ,this is doable... Economics were not always such as they are. This move ( changing of owners) was deliberate and self-serving. It will probably result in the building's demise.
About the only justice I could see done is IF the new owner ALSO would not be allowed to tear it down.... and Milne could not develop his remaining land because the School is there. This situation STINKS and reeks of underhandedness.. it has all along. So I say, if this is the way these two companies play ball, they should have to reap the consequences. Let the building sit right there and rot down , and both of them continue to pay taxes on land and building that is not generating them a dime.. and Justice is served.
Some news...or maybe this isn't really news ....Code Enforcement has been trying to get ahold of Tarpon with, according to the CE Report , no response. Repeatedly they have requested for Tarpon to comply by securing the building.. evidently they have ignored this.. So Im not sure if the City or who exactly did secure it at one point but its now standing open again..Same old story. Kids in it every day..now the back of the building is covered with Grafitti..and the owner , Tarpon is apparently doing nothing to comply in any way. I dont know why...it may be in part, that they have ,technically NO ACCESS to their property, as FH4 owns everything surrounding it. So if I am reading this document correctly, now fines (daily?) are being assessed.. So I think this may be part of the "Master Hearing" on the School. None of this is good news obviously.. and some who don't really want the building saved ,may finally realize their wishes. I am at a loss why anyone would A: buy a landlocked property and not know it beforehand, and B: not do anything to comply ...but then there are alot of things I do not understand. :)
I agree with you, that there's something not right about this entire deal, and I also question why anyone would buy property and not the land...that's just never set right with me. I've also felt that Milne has been a jerk from the get go...he's never really put forth any effort, instead he allowed you and the other volunteers to do what he should've paid to have done all those years.
At this point, I'm not sure what can be done...although unless code enforcement is saying that this is an emergency and is in imminent danger of collapsing onto another structure and/or a threat to public safety, there's no reason to grant demolition. You can always attend the HPC meetings and speak up about it.
I have a question. Can someone detail me the financing Milne used to buy the property and what kind of mortgage covenants were in place? His negligence could be said to have led to "waste" which is usually grounds for breaching the contract if it's not corrected. Also, doesn't the city have code enforcement? When a property owner allows a building to go into such disrepair, isn't code being violated to at least some degree? And is it to a degree where a city can take control? Also, tax liens being involuntary judicial judgements have priority over mortgage liens (even though FL is a lien theory state). I guess Milne's group paid cash? I'm too lazy to look this up and I'm sure that someone on here knows.
In answer to Springfielder's question that is a simple answer. FH4 somehow ( this is beyond me, since land and building are taxable) broke the property into lots...possibly to accommodate townhouses, although IMO Townhouses would fly just about as well as the School and a 100 unit addition would fly... but I think this was accomplished to subvert the entire taxable property and instead , pay tax on JUST the lots. If you look at the lots on the PA site, they are cut up into small lots. obviously individual small lots with no building have not much taxable value . With a building..even one in disrepair to this degree, taxes mount.. Im certain they intentionally let taxes accrue so that they would lose the building....let it be someone elses burden...and it is in more ways than one. Again I pose the question.....this is what I do NOT get....why would anyone buy a property and NOT know beforehand that it is landlocked...that is , all adjacent properties are owned by another corporation or foundation. Is it possible that FH4 and Tarpon ARE acquainted with one another,but nobodys saying? Is it possible that this continued neglect is deliberate so that one day, the City will have no recourse but to take the property or at least impose on us, the taxpayers, the added burden of now dismantling it because A: its in bad shape and B: FH4 deliberately did this arrangement waiting for a vacant lot, after someone else bears the burden of the taxes, security, and eventually demolition. DW pointed out that the land is neither worth the cost of wrecking the building and hauling it away, and certainly not the cost of rehab. So why would another corporation do this? It makes no sense whatsoever, and my bet is in the end SOMEONE did something that most of the rest of us could not get away with. I know what the building looked like the first time I was in it around 1985 and it was mostly intact. a little grafitti here and there and one or two windows broken but nothing ....NOTHING AT ALL like it was in 2006. Vandals are to thank in part but basic building maintenance, in this case , CHRONIC LACK OF , is why this place is in such sad shape.. Why can a homeowner not get away with this but a foundation can?
As to how the building was bought, that I have zero Idea of.. I know what was paid for it and all of its land .. but how (mortgage or not) I have no idea.
Quote from: simms3I have a question. Can someone detail me the financing Milne used to buy the property and what kind of mortgage covenants were in place? His negligence could be said to have led to "waste" which is usually grounds for breaching the contract if it's not corrected. Also, doesn't the city have code enforcement? When a property owner allows a building to go into such disrepair, isn't code being violated to at least some degree? And is it to a degree where a city can take control? Also, tax liens being involuntary judicial judgements have priority over mortgage liens (even though FL is a lien theory state). I guess Milne's group paid cash? I'm too lazy to look this up and I'm sure that someone on here knows.
I can respond about code enforcement, and yes, the city has a code enforcement department. There are field inspectors that will cite a property for violations, and if it becomes severe enough, they can end up becoming a rolling fine of 250.00 a day, every day until the violations have been satisfied and of course, the fines/liens paid. The city can assume the property, but refuses to do so...which I've always felt was stupid on their behalf, because the majority of these rolling fines are never paid, and until just recently, the property would end up being taken down with what's called demo by neglect.
......and if this building isnt a Shining example of what happens when you put not a thin dime into even basic building maintenance, therefore NEGLECT , I do not know what building would qualify.
Because I personally have seen it extensively around 1985 and then subsequently in 06, and so on, there is no question that the neglect is intentional. I remember the Auditorium with lightfixtures and glass in the windows (they were only partially boarded from the ground up, then...even the wood flooring was intact.. there was evidence of water damage ( paint and plaster coming off , but not appreciably. The main building still had some furnishings, all of the light fixtures, etc.. So Had the roof been maintained we still would have a mostly intact building.. all of the damage done by vandals are stuff that would have been removed and replaced anyway.. At the price the building was purchased for then , the cost of the roof repairs then would have been a fraction of what they now would be. This was preventable AND at that time , feasible to do. There is NO EXCUSE for the building's present condition .
While I can not really speak for the specifics of this building, traditional code enforcement often makes it very difficult to do anything to the building. If the owner fixes that relatively minor roof leak, but can not fix the rest of the code issues, then the building still gets fined and eventually comes down anyway. There is no incentive for the owner who can not just do it all to do anything at all. Add in the fact that while some may fight for the building, others are often saying it needs to go for social reasons. The end result is that the only way out for owners, if they can not financially restore the building, is to take it down.
I prefer the term "demolition by reckless policy" rather than demolition by neglect. The current polices set up the owner to fail and tries to use fear to force owners to do something and yet those same polices remove all incentives for the owner to take care of their property. Of course, some owners do just neglect the properties, but I suspect that if a method was in place to help and guide rather than just remove the incentives, the vast majority of owners would opt to protect their investments.
The good news is that the city did not intentionally create policies to end up with this result and while it may not be in time to really help this building, the city is now looking at ways to change the polices and promote saving and helping rather than demolition. The best way to have this building, regardless of it's personal fate, have real meaning for the future is to support the city in making these changes and help those working for these changes get them passed into law.
When given the choice of conspiracy or stupidity to explain a particular set of circumstances, it is always safest to chose stupidity because it is far more common.
Bet you that the Tarpon people just saw a 44,000 sq/ft building near the expressway for $86K and didn't look at the surrounding problems. Egg on face now.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 15, 2010, 09:47:48 AM
When given the choice of conspiracy or stupidity to explain a particular set of circumstances, it is always safest to chose stupidity because it is far more common.
Bet you that the Tarpon people just saw a 44,000 sq/ft building near the expressway for $86K and didn't look at the surrounding problems. Egg on face now.
I find the most common reasons behind these kind of things in Jacksonville is a hybrid of your theory.
A stupid conspiracy is not only possible, but usually explains the goings-on around here...
QuoteA stupid conspiracy is not only possible, but usually explains the goings-on around here...
How true, how true! Ivy Johnson, Jennifer Carrol and Rivers Construction spring instantly to mind.
Conspiracy....
The expansion of the Arts Market from the river to the park will create a walkable, under cover potential with access to both sides of the end point. That's the Riverside Park and the school and the property surrounding the school.
I'd bet several somebodys have looked at that closely and see big bucks a-coming.
I'd also say there's a snowballs chance in hell that the school could ever be developed into a retirement center or just plain apartments because of the constant noise from the highway. Spend some time under that bridge and you'll see what I mean. The sound bouncing back and forth between the highway structure and the buildings would even irritate the deaf. Us old folks can't tolerate that much noise any more.
At the risk of sounding naive, is there any foreseeable scenario whereby the two (is that correct?)
parties that own the building and the land would get out of the deal, and a nonprofit could step
in and try to do something arts related?
It could very likely be in the current owners best interest to do so.
Any conceivable redevelopment is going to be laborious, difficult and lengthy.
Maybe there needs to be a Riverside/ Brooklyn CDC .
As far as redevelopment program, some combination of arts related uses, possibly with some artists live/work placed away from I-95.
The saving grace for PS #4 is not going to be the merits of the building, especially given it's
condition, but the vitality of Riverside and the success of RAM.
Quote from: billy on November 15, 2010, 12:20:04 PM
At the risk of sounding naive, is there any foreseeable scenario whereby the two (is that correct?)
parties that own the building and the land would get out of the deal, and a nonprofit could step
in and try to do something arts related?
It could very likely be in the current owners best interest to do so.
Any conceivable redevelopment is going to be laborious, difficult and lengthy.
Maybe there needs to be a Riverside/ Brooklyn CDC .
As far as redevelopment program, some combination of arts related uses, possibly with some artists live/work placed away from I-95.
Billy.... Two seperate owners... One owns the land surrounding the School , the other owns the building and the land directly under the building..
As far as either giving up..possibly the building owner but doubtfully the surrounding land owner.
ANY possible reuse for the School would be wonderful.. Im sure most would agree, so long as it is preserved , rehabbed , and put into use.
Again so long as it stands , I think there is hope.. but the reality is , since 1971 ,give or take , it has been vacated. It would appear with this particular arrangement, that another chapter would involve demoltion, either in part, or whole,and my guess would be as a whole. I concur that any redevelopment would not be easy. Financing and a willing source to dole out the enormous costs of rehabbing alone, assuming the two parties would give up/ donate the package to a NP, would be few and far between. It has not happened since its aquisition, and the land owner now has really no liability. The owner of the School does, and really cannot even access the place to do anything to it, assuming they would totally restore it, ( which THEY will never do)
To me , the ONLY thing heretofore that has caused the building to remain, was its being placed in Landmark status in 2000. If not for that , it would already be gone. Even that status will not save it , if someone , entering even without permission gets seriously hurt or worse.
I wish there were some solution to this , other than a wrecking ball. To a degree , I think that might have been the wishes of the prior owner, but not so much... There is a way to do most anything , if there is a will.
It looks like a money pit to me.
Quote from: Overstreet on November 15, 2010, 12:40:37 PM
It looks like a money pit to me.
Most Historic Buildings that have had nothing done to them for close to half a century, usually are.
It it a City or National Landmark designation?
City designated.. City Council in 2000.
Timkin,
Are you going to the hearing on the 18th?
Unfortunately I will not be going, as much as I know I probably should, I must take care of health issues..IE Doctor Appointments..... I go to so many , of late, I have to write them down to keep track of them.
While I definitely am NOT in favor of the building being demolished, I am at peace, as I have mentioned , with the situation. I really do not know what difference my presence there would make, other than saying I was there. If it does come down, I do not want to be anywhere in the area until it is gone.. Watching it being demolished would be more than I could stomach right about now. I used to be angry about all of this, Im sure it was transparent in some of my postings a while back, and for that , I apologize to the other viewers and members of this site..It is a waste of emotion to be angry anymore , about a situation , I have no clue how to turn around...
Should anyone else here decide to go, I would be most appreciative to know the outcome, although in my heart, I think its pretty well a painted picture now.
If a demolition is ordered at this hearing,
won't that put a demolition lien on the property that Tarpon will have to pay?
Is it possible that this is just a means of getting the newer owner to secure the building?
If the city okays and puts the bid out for demolition, yes, there will be that lien as well against the property. I don't know how long or that amount of the current violation/fines are already against it, but that would have to be settled before anyone could purchase...so, yes.
The threat of demolition is real, they city doesn't use that as a means to provoke someone to get off their lazy butt to resolve the current violations...when it reaches that point, it's either okay'd unless someone steps up to protest. If the building (which we know isn't) in imminent danger of collapsing onto another building or onto where it is a public safety issue...a protest often helps stop the demo...not all of the time, but often.
I'm not in town at present, is anyone going to be there from RAP?
Quote from: billy on November 15, 2010, 07:23:51 PM
If a demolition is ordered at this hearing,
won't that put a demolition lien on the property that Tarpon will have to pay?
Is it possible that this is just a means of getting the newer owner to secure the building?
That is possible , and in fact partially likely, Billy..
To FH IV's credit , I will at least say, they did board the building up from time to time. Tarpon has done absolutely nothing with it. Its also possible they now know the situation they face with the building and will walk away from it. I guess at this point anything is possible. When they refuse to communicate with me, a volunteer, or Code Enforcement, its difficult to tell what their position is on the building, except to conclude that they do not care if it stays or not.
I think someone is trying to keep the place boarded up. I drove by a week ago and there was a guy on the property closing up some holes. I only spoke with him in passing and didn't think to ask who he was working for. He definitely wasn't a city employee.
Would be curious as to who that was as well. Could it be that Tarpon finally realized Code Enforcement (and I) was not kidding when we requested they board up the building?
I called the City and was told that the hearing is now December 6th at 10:00 am.
107 North Laura Street, Suite 200 (City Hall Annex)
It appears the matter is the ongoing unsecured openings in the fence and building.
There are beginning to be some questions raised by city staffers about the legality of the re-plat that cut the building out of its original lot. Maybe the Tarpon people bought more than they knew if they will follow up on that possibility.
DW,,, when you say bought more than they knew, any idea, how much more? Im trying to follow .. is it possible ,they are entitled to the entire tract of property?
Quote from: Timkin on November 16, 2010, 09:42:03 PM
DW,,, when you say bought more than they knew, any idea, how much more? Im trying to follow .. is it possible ,they are entitled to the entire tract of property?
I'm certainly not in DogWalker's mind right now, but I THINK he's implying Tarpon got more baggage than they expected.
I think that they looked on the tax deed sale, saw 44,000 sq/ft near the interchange of I-10 and I-95 for $86,000 dollars and didn't look any further. They certainly got more "baggage" than they expected including all of us! ;D
Judging by the reaction that Timkin and I saw in their representative I think they were not aware of the soundness and attractiveness of the building and the awful state of the interior.
I also think that they MIGHT have legal grounds to undo the re-plat that cut the building out of the surrounding property based on the historic designation for the building. If I were the owner, I would have a really good property lawyer take a look at the process that was used. If the Historic Preservation Commission did not approve the re-plat it might not be proper.
We (me and spouse) attended the Special Masters Hearing this morning and were the only people there who were not Code Enforcement employees.
The Special Master imposed a fine of $250 per day on Tarpon IV, LLC, the new owners, since they have not responded to any of the efforts by the Code Enforcement office to get in touch with them. This lien on this building also means that Tarpon IV, LLC cannot sell ANY of their properties in Duval Country without paying off all of the liens that have been put on Annie Lytle since they purchased it.
Tarpon IV, LLC owns more than forty properties in Duval County, several of them are in Springfield and three of them are on Ionia Street. This might be of interest to several of the people on this forum. If you are interested in exactly which ones, go on the Property Appraiser's web site and search for "Tarpon".
We learned from the head Code Enforcement officer that the city has a contractor who is boarding up the building and securing the fence. The cost of this contractor is also in place as a lien on all of Tarpon IV, LLC's property.
Code Enforcement is only re-inspecting Annie Lytle every three months, so I am going to call the chief inspector every time I see an opening in the fence or the building. The contractor is going to love that! If the destructive creeps are caught inside the fence or building after they have broken in then they can be charged with burglary, not just trespass.
Since the owners of Tarpon IV, LLC are not responding to Tim anymore, maybe this action by the City will finally get their attention.
In any case, the Code Enforcement office has been reminded again that there are some of us out here who really care what happens concerning this building.
If any of you are interested in keeping track of what is occurring with the school, the code enforcement case number is 2001-14120. The first four numbers are the year the original case complaint was filed.
Thank you so much for attending!
My own office had its monthly advisory meeting so I couldn't break free to go, though I would've loved to meet the CE people. Not my division, but it's always good to know others in the city.
Interesting about how they can assess a lien on ALL of their properties in the county like that.
Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on November 18, 2010, 02:19:03 PM
Interesting about how they can assess a lien on ALL of their properties in the county like that.
I found that to be new information and very interesting myself.
Someone at the City yesterday told me the hearing was not until December 6th.
DW,,,, Glad to know you attended the hearing.. I sure would not think Tarpon would go on indefinitely ,not responding to Code Enforcement. Sheesh,,, sure sounds like the bill would be mounting on their properties..... Have heard nothing at all from them in quite sometime..
Assuming they never respond , wonder what eventually happens? does the City end up with all of these properties?
They don't respond, They don't even pay property taxes.
The city responds with demolition.
See below for Historic Springfield:
From coj.net:
070986-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1430 LIBERTY ST N (green demo sign, completely open, we looked at this last week)
071462-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1647 PEARL ST (on my original at risk list to be demolished)
071516-0000 TARPON IV LLC 404 7TH ST W (demolished)
072215-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1721 IONIA ST (arson, then demolished)
072370-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1540 CLARK ST (empty lot on corner, has been for sometime though, I don't remember a house there)
072448-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1416 WALNUT ST (empty lot)
072500-0010 TARPON IV LLC 1323 IONIA ST (pink duplex, virtually stands alone on Ionia)
072599-0000 TARPON IV LLC 0 2ND ST E (empty lot)
072708-0000 TARPON IV LLC 1140 IONIA ST (had work done, now just sits)
072738-0000 TARPON IV LLC 0 WALNUT ST (empty lot)
DON'T YOU SEE THE PATTERN????? What are we missing here?
They don't pay property taxes either. I don't get it.
They lose all their houses in Springfield to demolition, swear they had more on Ionia than what is listed above.
This investor group does not bode well for the building.
From their track record, it would appear they couldn't care less about what happens to the structures they buy...
Which poses the question....What the hell are they doing???????? Purchasing Tax sales, Not paying taxes on the properties, not maintaining them.
Is this company meant to operate a for-profit business?
Sheesh... might as well set fire to millions of dollars. It makes no sense at all .
Tim, It does on the scale that they do it. They might lose on eighty percent of the properties they buy but the other twenty percent is hugely profitable. They are a multi-million dollar investment firm that does a huge number of these tax deed purchases. They have acquired thousands and thousands of properties in Florida for just a few million dollars.
If the property market stays flat, however, they might run out of money before things start coming back.
Looks like in this case, they would give it away to unload it.. Still... Who would take it on when someone owns the surrounding property?
Quote from: billy on November 18, 2010, 03:43:37 PM
Someone at the City yesterday told me the hearing was not until December 6th.
Is anyone planning on going to this hearing?
The hearing has already been held. Read above. It is not on Dec 6.
Is there any developments on this. One of my facebook contacts indicated she heard the School and property was sold...I would have thought it would be all over MJ if that were the case . Anyone?
I'll bet she's talking about the March sale to Tarpon IV LLC.
Strange goings on with that property...
Foundation Holding, a non-profit LLC, sold the school to Peninsular Brooklyn LLC, a for profit LLC, in 2007 10 months after Mr Milne formed the Peninsular LLC. That appears to be Mr. Milne selling to himself and then not paying the taxes due on the school, paving the way for a tax deed sale to Tarpon in March of 2010. How that property got locked into the middle of the other Foundation Holding property is certainly odd and mayby not permissible. Foundation Holding owns the rest of the block too except for the properties owned by Hughes Auto and Dickson CC.
She was aware of that transaction ,but could give me no details about it. So I have to assume someone heard about the Tarpon purchase, and did not know that happened in March of last year.
In my heart , with the chain of events that have happened, I think the road is being paved to demolish it. I just cannot find an investor anywhere, despite countless attempts. One entity owns all of the land except for that under the building, and another (at least for now) owns the building and the land under it. ) I cannot imagine anyone wanting to go through the red tape of acquiring all of it plus the enormous cost of Fixing it up. That is not to say I would not be elated if it happened because I would. Still hope it will remain. Still hope an entity comes forth to save it.
Don't give up on this shell. I maintain faith that preservation and symbiotic adaptive paartial reuse with selective demolition/reconstruction remain possible.and should be likely. [remove one of the portico/collonades mere yards away from the 95N/i-10W/Stockton flyover?] The collumns and pediment overstructures were not originally an element of the roof structure, right?
Walls and foundation show no damage. minimal masonry repair needed it's really amazing that it was built so well.
Any building of its vintage could have met the dirt long ago.
thank you for the photos of the beauty that is ps4/annie Lytle.
it's built like a bomb shelter.
Might be that a sympathetic attorney or two on this site would be willing to take on the formation of a citizens preservation group and investigate the monkey business going on behind the scenes. If laws have been violated better to file on them now rather then waiting for the damn building to fall down or be torn down.
OCKLAWAHA
Everything you see on the building, including the columns and pediment are original to the building. Its built like a fortress. Even the interior walls are masonry; the hollow clay ancestors of concrete blocks.
I've seen buildings in much worse condition that were renovated by the Savannah College of Art and Design. Now they are beautiful education buildings for the college, and some of the gems of Savannah. It can be done, but do we have any developers in town with that kind of vision?
Not so you would notice, unfortunately, Jax Native.
QuoteI've seen buildings in much worse condition that were renovated by the Savannah College of Art and Design.
We cannot even save the fire station down the road, what makes this more special?
:) ____________________________________________________?
I have finally learned not to even reply to negative posts. However on a positive note, FS #5 is still standing and so ,obviously is the School. ANYTHING I can do to help expedite the saving of either structure I will gladly do, but I personally am tapped out of ideas.
At least some of us try. :)
Both the firehouse and the school are special, as they're both historic...both have had many of us fighting to save them. This just happens to be a thread about saving the school, just as I'm sure there's one about saving the firehouse.
The school building itself is stable, even with the damage to the interior, the actual structure is sound. The problem is, the those who have purchased the property have failed to make good on what they had said were their intentions...some may have fallen victim to the down slide of the market, some just simply didn't have the financial support and some just flat out not truthful as to their intent; of which, is now the case.
There are many options as to what an investor could do with the structure, however, it would of course, as with any large structures, require a great deal of financing. One of the down sides of the structure is the location, which is off the beaten path and sits under the flyover for the bridge...which does not make it look inviting to many. Still, as I said, there's many options as to what it could become, to those with money and vision.
Well put, Springfielder.
Considering that there are concrete plans to connect the Riverside Arts Market to Riverside Park, including constructive utilization of the entire passage between the two, it is entirely plausible that the school structure would have some complimentary connective development rather than be an eyesore along the perimeter of the park.
In order to fully access the school property, the inane encirclement of the school by the Foundation Holdings bunch (Mr. Milne) needs to be breached. Somehow Mr. Milne should be convinced to part with that very few feet of dirt surrounding the school footprint. It's almost as if it were a long planned impediment and speculation of riches to come.
Has anyone figured out how years of neglect and disregard of code violations could be so easily foisted off on a new sucker owner? It seems the city really fell all over itself to lien Tarpon properties but never found the stones to lien Mr. Milne and Peninsular Brooklyn, LLC, or Foundation Holdings.
It helps to have a lot of political connections and to have been a candidate for mayor of the city as well as being a lawyer.
I still think it would make a great artist studio/loft building. similar to the upper level of city market in savannah or the torpedo factory in alexandria.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on January 17, 2011, 06:51:06 PM
Not so you would notice, unfortunately, Jax Native.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Please elaborate.
There is no activity mentioned on the CARE site with COJ. I keep an eye on it since I can access it quicker. ;)
Quote from: JaxNative68 on January 20, 2011, 12:37:06 PM
I still think it would make a great artist studio/loft building. similar to the upper level of city market in savannah or the torpedo factory in alexandria.
Could not agree more. There are endless possibilities as to what it could be used for, and I would be agreeable with (just about) ANYTHING at this point ,so long as the structure remained in it's present footprint and was not significantly altered.
In the present situation (one group owning the land ,other than what the school is on,and another owning the school itself and the land beneath it) this is probably , from a standpoint of ever finding a potential investor/developer the worst possible thing that could have ever happened, short of the building finally being demolished, which clearly would make some people, VERY happy, given the statements made.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 17, 2011, 12:40:19 PM
Might be that a sympathetic attorney or two on this site would be willing to take on the formation of a citizens preservation group and investigate the monkey business going on behind the scenes. If laws have been violated better to file on them now rather then waiting for the damn building to fall down or be torn down.
OCKLAWAHA
If there is a sympathetic Attorney or two on this site who can do something....I beg of you...I implore you to please do so... It is only my opinion , but I think I am right, that these events were done deliberately , so as to finally be rid of the building... It makes NO SENSE at all for a company to buy a commercial property on a tax-sale and DO NOTHING WITH IT.... NOT EVEN MARKET it , unless of course , SOMEONE PAID THEM TO DO IT .
If the shoe fits , wear it ;)
Quote from: Springfielder on January 19, 2011, 08:38:20 AM
Both the firehouse and the school are special, as they're both historic...both have had many of us fighting to save them. This just happens to be a thread about saving the school, just as I'm sure there's one about saving the firehouse.
The school building itself is stable, even with the damage to the interior, the actual structure is sound. The problem is, the those who have purchased the property have failed to make good on what they had said were their intentions...some may have fallen victim to the down slide of the market, some just simply didn't have the financial support and some just flat out not truthful as to their intent; of which, is now the case.
There are many options as to what an investor could do with the structure, however, it would of course, as with any large structures, require a great deal of financing. One of the down sides of the structure is the location, which is off the beaten path and sits under the flyover for the bridge...which does not make it look inviting to many. Still, as I said, there's many options as to what it could become, to those with money and vision.
+1
It needs a new roof and a whoooooooooooooooooooooooole lot of graffiti cleanup, but the structure is sound.
I wonder how to get spray paint off of 94 year old brick ? or would it just be easier to paint it?
It can be taken off, but it's time consuming and expensive. Then, because the cleaned areas are CLEAN, the rest of the brick has to be cleaned to match. Carefully!
I was wondering what the process would be , DW.. I have a pressure washer if that would be a means to do it.. problem is getting a water source. or if that isn't a viable option ,what do you suggest? perhaps strypeeze? The out door graffiti is getting out of hand on it , saying nothing at all for the inside..
I did contact JSO about kids "camping" there this weekend. My understanding is they were promptly removed , even from the basement where they thought they could "hide" from police.
Good for you, Tim! Hope they do more than escort them off the property.
Straight pressure washer will erode old brick and blast out the mortar. There are a couple of citrene based solvents that can be applied, scrubbed, then low pressure rinsed with a pressure washer. It takes several passes to get all of the paint out of the pores of the old brick. High fired brick doesn't absorb the paint so much and is easier. Concrete can be treated the same way, but it is usually easier to just paint it a matching color. All of out overpasses and expressway columns are painted anyway.
Well..... Looks like its getting time to spruce the place up again.. We all know the owner isn't going to bother.. Am going to check with Code Enforcement to make sure they have no objection.
Tim, I have seen contractors on the site painting out graffiti and re-securing the school. I think that the City has taken over these chores from the owners and is just adding up the costs to the liens on the building.
The graffiti on the columns and around the back has been painted out, but the usual window has been pried open again.
Quote from: Timkin on April 26, 2011, 05:06:57 PM
I was wondering what the process would be , DW.. I have a pressure washer if that would be a means to do it.. problem is getting a water source. or if that isn't a viable option ,what do you suggest? perhaps strypeeze? The out door graffiti is getting out of hand on it , saying nothing at all for the inside..
I did contact JSO about kids "camping" there this weekend. My understanding is they were promptly removed , even from the basement where they thought they could "hide" from police.
Pressure washers and harsh chemicals are very bad for historic brick structures. Very mild soaps, slow water drips and soft brushes are the best, but expensive due to being very labor intensive.
http:/www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps
sorry the web site should have read:
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief06.htm
Any update on the landlocked PS4?
A dedicated group of volunteers led by Patsy has worked on Saturdays for months and has cleared out almost all of the debris in the upstairs classrooms, halls and stairs. They have moved tons of stuff to the curb by hand, one bucket load at a time. Just incredible dedication.
A graffiti vandal was arrested inside the building while in the act of spraying a tag on the wall of the auditorium last Friday. A JSO officer doing a routine check of the building in the middle of the day found him up a ladder. He spent the night in jail and it was his birthday. JSO is checking the building almost everyday.
You can follow the progress of the Annie Lytle Preservation Group on their website. www.savepublicschoolnumber4.com
While I am not involved with the group presently I won't say never again. In over 12 years we have done some serious sprucing up to the Annie Lytle building and grounds.. The majority of the building is cleaned out . The base wall around the building, once covered with graffitti has been painted and cleaned up.. We have a regular security group on site nightly... Interestingly the amount of vandaliism and tagging has become minimal thanks to the security team and their efforts. Also, countless volunteers who have come along which is probably the most heartening part of the seed, Dog Walker and I planted years ago when we began cleaning it up.. It also has an updated owner who lives locally but so far has not made any formal plans for the school..
We continue to have hope for its future.