(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/011-1.jpg)
...will happen very soon.
What is the basis for demo?
What's wrong with the house?
Or should I say...
What are they saying is wrong with the house? ???
Address?
Happening right here, right now.
1612 Market Street
Was purchased less than 1 year ago for $25k
Demolition requested soon after purchase, July 2010.
Demolition denied.
Demolition requested for back porches that were added long after its’ original built.
Demolition ^ approved with conditions.
Private contractor hired, home damaged to the point where it is now considered a safety hazard to neighboring homes according to structural engineer reports as piers, flooring, and walls were removed that shouldn't have been.
Home condemned on January 9th.
Owner required to “restore or demolish.â€
JEA cut power.
Sewer lines disconnected.
Bulldozer has been visible on site.
Permission granted to demolish the entire structure i.e. “Emergency Demolition.â€
QuotePrivate contractor hired, home damaged to the point where it is now considered a safety hazard to neighboring homes according to structural engineer reports as piers, flooring, and walls were removed that shouldn't have been.
So the contractor removed piers? Is it sagging?
Sounds like what happened with the home on Greenwood in Avondale whose demo request was denied.
FYI, my stepdad and I just finished rehabbing a home in the Havanna, FL(Coonbottom) area built probably around 1890 that had too many supporting piers removed when taking out a damaged front porch many years ago(sounds eerily similar to this story). I can tell you, this particular home was in FAR worse shape than 95% of the homes I see in Springfield.
Was/Is there a public hearing on this house?
If the contractor damaged the house, why isn't the contractor legally required to repair the damage, whatever the cost? Then the demo wouldn't be needed. Would you tear your house down that you lived in just because a contractor damaged part of it? Or would you sue the contractor if he/she failed to restore the house properly?
Not to be a conspiracy freak, but that's exactly what appears to be happening here.
Emergency demolitions are just that.
Done on emergency.
No hearings necessary.
Conspiracy freak. Yup. Yup. Yup.
Quote from: stjr on January 18, 2011, 05:08:39 PM
If the contractor damaged the house, why isn't the contractor legally required to repair the damage, whatever the cost? Then the demo wouldn't be needed. Would you tear your house down that you lived in just because a contractor damaged part of it? Or would you sue the contractor if he/she failed to restore the house properly?
Not to be a conspiracy freak, but that's exactly what appears to be happening here.
Or what if you paid the contractor to make the house dangerous to the neighboring houses?
This house was for sale back in March. I remember going by it to check it out (never went inside). Forget what the asking price was.
Seems like it wasn't THAT bad though. At least certainly not bad enough to tear it down. But like I said, never went inside.
R10-389182.000 1612 MARKET ST N 7/22/2010 FINALIZED Residential Single Family Existing Building
B10-394037.000 1612 MARKET ST N 8/5/2010 ACTIVE Residential Single Family Alterations & Repairs
B10-398813.000 1612 MARKET ST N VOID Residential Other Demolition
P11-419127.000 1612 MARKET ST N 1/18/2011 ACTIVE Residential Single Family Existing Building
B10-394037.000 rehab to include: repairs/replace front porch like type construction , fix/ repair/ replace sididing soffit fascia, paint ext, demo interior as necessary no structural. , fence extterior COA 10-410 Limited scope of work
Possible Owner:
MACRIS DIRECT LLC
Filing Information
Document Number L08000075636
FEI/EIN Number 263152696
Date Filed 08/06/2008
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
1606 N. MARKET ST.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32206 US
Mailing Address
1606 N. MARKET ST.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32206 US
Registered Agent Name & Address
UNITED STATES CORPORATION AGENTS, INC.
13302 WINDING OAKS BLVD.
SUITE A-100
TAMPA FL 33612 US
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
Title MGRM
MACRIS, ANDREW K
1606 N. MARKET ST.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32206 US
i go by that house a lot. never thought there was anything wrong with it. still don't really think there's anything wrong with it.
As this house has an active building permit on it, code enforcement folks, which I understand were called in after the demo request was made, should not be involved, it should be the building department.
By the way, I bid the structure on this house a few months ago, piers were OK, some needing minor repair and the estimate was under $10K
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/IM001944-1.jpg)
Tomorrow morning...he's in an alley waiting.
Seems like a done deal. Hmmm, some neighborhood people could get out there & form a human shield to stop them. Not that I'm suggesting doing anything that would be potentially illegal like that. ;)
QuotePrincipal Address
1606 N. MARKET ST.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32206 US
Would this be a neighbor next door trying to create a double lot?
I emailed and called the mayor's office this afternoon.
I received an email response to my request for help and they are looking into the matter.
Quote from: stjr on January 18, 2011, 07:03:15 PM
QuotePrincipal Address
1606 N. MARKET ST.
JACKSONVILLE FL 32206 US
Would this be a neighbor next door trying to create a double lot?
That is exactly what this is. It is the entire reason the owner bought the house. We, as contractors, and a Realtor thought we had convinced him to do the right thing but here we are a few months later.
This is sickening.
I am told (by the mayor's office,) that the house will not come down tomorrow.
So we will take this one day at a time.
Quote from: iloveionia on January 18, 2011, 09:09:54 PM
I am told (by the mayor's office,) that the house will not come down tomorrow.
So we will take this one day at a time.
One Day at a Time is a good start!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 18, 2011, 08:59:14 PM
This is sickening.
Really, this really shouldn't be allowed. I mean, if the guy wants a bigger yard, why the hell live in an urban area in the first place? That's what the 'burbs are for.
Destroying a historic home for more land is a pretty douchy move.
This sort of "emergency demolition" circumvents the Historic Planning Department. Joel and his staff didn't even see the order until after the demolition contractor pulled a permit.
I met with Martin Kennelly, inspector in the Historic Planning Department, at the site today. As soon as they heard about the demolition, he went out to the site to talk to the owner and the contractor.
IMHO, all demolitions, emergency or otherwise, ought to have to go before the Historic Planning Commission before permits are allowed to be pulled. A Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition ought to always be determined at a commission level if for no other reason than the minutes of the meeting are available for public scrutiny.
If we want stronger historic standards and districts, we certainly need to empower the historic planning department in real and significant ways.
Why did the fact that the owner applied for demolition less than 6 months ago not raise red flags with the city? ??? Don't they check the recent history of the house before approving an "emergency demolition"?
Apparently not, which is how some of these 'emergency' demos take place. This is nothing more than the owner getting what he wanted in the first place...and IMO, the entire situation needs to be very closely scrutinized. There's clearly wrong doing that took place. If this contractor that was hired to remove the rear porch, and supposedly damaged the house to make it unstable (hence the emergency demo) then at the very least, that contractor should not only be fined, but have their license suspended/revoked. Even if there is damage, surely it can be repaired without having to take down, yet another structure in our historic district. The entire situation has an extremely foul stench to it.
Please, if you support historic preservation in Jacksonville, contact the Mayor's office regarding this "emergency" demolition. Contact your councilperson.
Quote from: Miss Fixit on January 19, 2011, 08:50:52 AM
Please, if you support historic preservation in Jacksonville, contact the Mayor's office regarding this "emergency" demolition. Contact your councilperson.
QuoteIn regards to the preservation of our fabric and structures:
HPC MEMBERS
dcase@rs-architects.com
rmoore@jaxlegelhelp.com
aschifanella@bellsouth.net
joe_thompson@gspnet.com
jennifer.mansfield@hklaw.com
lisasellsjax@gmail.com
Jerry@DZYNECONCEPTS.com
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
billk@coj.net
PRESERVATION OFFICE
jcrofts@coj.net
mceachin@coj.net
sheppard@coj.net
amartina@coj.net
spaull@coj.net
PRESERVATION SECRETARY
scherrie@coj.net
PRESERVATION OFFICE INSPECTOR
mkennelly@coj.net
ATTORNEY FOR PRESERVATION AND CODE
CherryS@coj.net
COUNCIL MEMBERS
webb@coj.net
clay@coj.net
wbishop@coj.net
rclark@coj.net
redman@coj.net
ashad@coj.net
gaffney@coj.net
edlee@coj.net
wajones@coj.net
rbrown@coj.net
jrc@coj.net
joost@coj.net
holt@coj.net
ddavis@coj.net
corrigan@coj.net
ronnief@coj.net
khyde@coj.net
gloriousj@coj.net
JASON TEAL, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
jteal@coj.net
CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT
kscott@coj.net
CODE ENFORCEMENT
elainel@coj.net
cspooner@coj.net
MAYOR
jpeyton@coj.net
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SPAR
brenda@sparcouncil.org
And it needs to be today.
Quote from: sheclown on January 19, 2011, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: Miss Fixit on January 19, 2011, 08:50:52 AM
Please, if you support historic preservation in Jacksonville, contact the Mayor's office regarding this "emergency" demolition. Contact your councilperson.
QuoteIn regards to the preservation of our fabric and structures:
HPC MEMBERS
dcase@rs-architects.com
rmoore@jaxlegelhelp.com
aschifanella@bellsouth.net
joe_thompson@gspnet.com
jennifer.mansfield@hklaw.com
lisasellsjax@gmail.com
Jerry@DZYNECONCEPTS.com
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
billk@coj.net
PRESERVATION OFFICE
jcrofts@coj.net
mceachin@coj.net
sheppard@coj.net
amartina@coj.net
spaull@coj.net
PRESERVATION SECRETARY
scherrie@coj.net
PRESERVATION OFFICE INSPECTOR
mkennelly@coj.net
ATTORNEY FOR PRESERVATION AND CODE
CherryS@coj.net
COUNCIL MEMBERS
webb@coj.net
clay@coj.net
wbishop@coj.net
rclark@coj.net
redman@coj.net
ashad@coj.net
gaffney@coj.net
edlee@coj.net
wajones@coj.net
rbrown@coj.net
jrc@coj.net
joost@coj.net
holt@coj.net
ddavis@coj.net
corrigan@coj.net
ronnief@coj.net
khyde@coj.net
gloriousj@coj.net
JASON TEAL, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
jteal@coj.net
CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT
kscott@coj.net
CODE ENFORCEMENT
elainel@coj.net
cspooner@coj.net
MAYOR
jpeyton@coj.net
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SPAR
brenda@sparcouncil.org
Just sent an email to everyone on your list Gloria.
I sent an email too. I also put this together to illustrate the fact that some of our worst looking buildings can have a rebirth as beautiful homes that can turn into nice tax revenue for the city in the future - but only if we save them now. http://animoto.com/play/yyyo1911WKLyqycUKXTx6w (http://animoto.com/play/yyyo1911WKLyqycUKXTx6w)
Love the video, it's wonderful!
I also sent my letter to everyone...let's hope this can be stopped!
I sent the letter to the masses too.
Excellent, excellent video Chicken.
Beautiful video!
I hope this link can come up for you. I traced it in the CARE system.
http://care.coj.net/FindbyNumPrintFormat.asp?yr=2011&num=36763 (http://care.coj.net/FindbyNumPrintFormat.asp?yr=2011&num=36763)
SORRY.... THAT LINK WORKS ON MY COMPUTER, BUT DIDN'T REALIZE IT WON'T GO OUTSIDE.
PUBLIC RECORDS AND ALL, HERE'S WHAT IT SAID:
_________________________________________________________________
Number: 2011 - 36763 Status: Active
Entered On: Jan 07, 2011 9:50:00 AM Est. 1st Action: Jan 08, 2011 Est. Completion On: Jun 24, 2011
Entered By: mikeo@coj.net Entered By's Dep/Div: Environmental and Compliance/Municipal Code Compliance
Description: Unsafe Structure
Division: Municipal Code Compliance Sub.Division: Property Safety
Source: General Citizenry Who Notified: Code Enforcement Officer
Address: 1612 Market St N
Council District:
7 - Dr. Johnny Gaffney CPAC:
Urban Core Waste Hauler:
CITY Park Area:
Area 1 Zipcode:
32206 JSO Subsector:
B-2
Comments: Transfering case to unsafe track
Interested Party / Complainant Information
No Information Available
List of Actions
Action Date: Jan 18 2011 3:37PM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 18 2011 3:37PM
Action: Work in Process Action Taker: 76
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: Abtract work completed
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 3:19PM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 3:19PM
Action: Work in Process Action Taker: 239
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: Violations Observed. Property has been cited.
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 11:02AM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 11:02AM
Action: Work in Process Action Taker: 234
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: 2011-36763 Set Flag for JEA and permits needed as instructed by officer O'loughlin's comment dtd 01/07/11. . .jdv
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 11:01AM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 11:01AM
Action: Work in Process Action Taker: 234
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: 2011-36763 Set Flag for JEA and permits needed as instructed by officer O'loughlin's comment dtd 01/07/11. . .jdv
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 10:13AM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 10:13AM
Action: Work in Process Action Taker: 239
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: 2011-36763 Owner uncovered unsafe conditions while conducting renovation, and now intends to demolish the structure at the recommendation of his structural engineers report enclosed as attachment in case. MikeO
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 10:02AM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 10:02AM
Action: Assigned Action Taker: 1
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
Comments: Case assigned
Action Date: Jan 7 2011 9:50AM Est.Completion: Jun 24 2011 9:50AM Entered: Jan 7 2011 9:50AM
Action: Open
Assigned To: Environmental and Compliance / Municipal Code Compliance / Property Safety
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/jbm32206/houses%20in%20danger/003.jpg?t=1295622958)
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/jbm32206/houses%20in%20danger/005.jpg?t=1295622846)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com//i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/jbm32206/houses%20in%20danger/004.jpg?t=1295622868)
You can see how it will now make for a much bigger yard for the owner, once it's down
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/jbm32206/houses%20in%20danger/007.jpg?t=1295622891)
death awaits
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/jbm32206/houses%20in%20danger/006.jpg?t=1295622910)
The piers underneath the house are still there in your photo. Someone lied about that to get the demolition approved...
Chirs, that's my point....and that's the city's inspectors ::)
Seems like a "smart" owner might have considered "connecting" his house to this for a cheap, efficient, "addition" or doing some minimal work to make this house a detached "guest house/studio/office/bonus room" and just adding the back yard to his by extending the fencing for the extra yard he wants.
I'm about to send another email out to the list... what's the current status?
Quote from: Springfielder on January 21, 2011, 10:59:38 AM
Chirs, that's my point....and that's the city's inspectors ::)
That's deplorable, but certainly doesn't surprise me when it comes to COJ code enforcement. Those people always seem to have some agenda that has little or nothing to do with property safety. At least that was generally my own experience with them. There is nothing unsafe or unsound about this property, it seems clear everyone is playing ball because the owner is the one who wants it gone, and code enforcement has devolved into viewing their job as making sure places get torn down.
I couldn't agree more, that code enforcement is just playing along and flexing their muscles...there's nothing imminently dangerous that is a public safety issue with this house. If there's structural damage, it can be repaired and the contractor should have to pay for it.
It's a done deal, the order will be signed and the house will come down. Doesn't matter that it's pure BS, doesn't matter that the city could've forced the owner/contractor to make emergency repairs to 'stabilize' the structure. Code enforcement wins, and the owner gets what he wanted all along, a bigger yard for a pool...and the historic district loses
Sent another email.
What ashame that the proper channels are being allowed to be circumvented in this manner.
We as a community collectively lose when this is allowed to happen.
This is a case of Demolition by Neglect.
Truth.
Here is the code/consequences:
Sec. 307.111. - Enforcement; civil remedies.
(a)
Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter shall be enforced by the Planning and Development Department as follows:
(1)
By the Special Magistrate pursuant to the authority granted by F.S. Ch. 162, Part I, and Ch. 91, Ordinance Code, however, in no instance shall a civil penalty less than $100 per violation per day of violation be imposed;
(2)
By citation for civil penalties pursuant to the authority granted by F.S. Ch. 162, Part II, and Ch. 609, Ordinance Code, however, in no instance shall a civil penalty less than $100 per violation per day of violation be imposed;
(3)
By action for civil penalties through a court of competent jurisdiction as follows:
(i)
The civil penalty for convictions of violations committed by an agent hired by or working on behalf of the property owner to perform work or by a property owner who performed such work him or her self on any structure or property regulated under this Chapter or for violations of Section 307.110 shall be as follows:
(1)
$1,000 for a first violation;
(2)
$2,000 for a second violation; and
(3)
$3,000 civil penalty for a third or subsequent violation, and the violator shall be prohibited from applying for a certificate of appropriateness for work not associated with the correction of the violation for a period of three months.
Additionally, the violator shall be prohibited from applying for any certificate of appropriateness until such civil penalty awarded pursuant to this Section has been paid in full. Prohibitions against application for a certificate of appropriateness contemplated in this Section shall not become effective until the judgment requiring such prohibition becomes final.
(ii)
Civil penalties assessed against property owners who did not do the unauthorized work themselves for violations of this Chapter shall in no instance be less than $50 and no more than $500 per day per violation.
(4)
By an action for injunctive relief through a court of competent jurisdiction; and
(5)
Violators holding a contractor's certification or license shall in all instances be referred to the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and/or the appropriate state licensing board, for further enforcement.
Each day and each unauthorized alteration of each separate historic element regulated by this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart (a).
(b)
In cases where a structure has been either demolished or relocated in violation of this Chapter, or where any building has to be demolished by the City pursuant to the property safety requirements of Chapter 518 and the owner of said building has received two or more notices from the City regarding neglect or failure to comply with Chapter 518 as they pertain to the structure, a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner. Additionally and separate from any civil penalty provision in this Section, there shall be no certificate of appropriateness issued for new development on the subject property for a period of one year from the date the City's judgment for civil penalties has become final, unless and only when such certificate of appropriateness is issued to correct and repair a partial demolition.
(c)
In addition to civil penalties, any person altering, demolishing or relocating all or any portion of property in violation of the provisions of this Chapter may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.
(d)
In cases where the violation is of a nature such that it can be readily and appropriately reversed, the property owner or agent shall have 10 days from notice of the existence of a violation or issuance of a citation or stop work order to begin corrective action or reversal of the violation before a civil penalty may be levied. If the corrective action or reversal of the violation is not commenced in a significant manner (such as hiring a contractor to begin corrective measures or filing an application for a certificate of appropriateness to perform such corrective action), civil penalties shall accrue from the date the notice, citation or the stop work order was initially provided to the property owner or agent. Filing an application for a certificate of appropriateness seeking to gain after-the-fact approval of the unauthorized work shall not be considered commencement of corrective actions. All corrective actions under this subpart shall be complete within six months after receiving an approved certificate of appropriateness, unless an extension of time is granted in writing by the Director of the Planning Department.
(e)
The owner or tenant of any structure subject to the regulations of this Chapter and any architect, planner, surveyor, engineer, realtor, attorney, builder, contractor, agent or other person who commits, participates in, assists in, or maintains a violation may be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the same penalties as the person or entity actually performing the unauthorized actions.
(f)
The daily accrual of any civil penalty shall be tolled from the date a complete application for a certificate of appropriateness seeking after-the-fact approval of unauthorized work is filed with the Planning Department until a final decision is rendered on such application. If such application results in a denial in whole or in part for the unauthorized work, the civil penalty authorized under this Section for work associated with such denial shall be tallied uninterrupted from the original date of the violation.
(g)
Work that has been done without first obtaining a required certificate of appropriateness or that has been done in violation of or contrary to an approved certificate of appropriateness, including any conditions imposed therein, shall be considered irreparable or irreversible.
(h)
Civil penalty payments recovered pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to fund enforcement efforts under this Chapter, with any remainder deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund on an annual basis. Upon successful prosecution of any violation of this Chapter wherein the City has filed suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover a civil penalty and/or obtain injunctive relief, the City shall be authorized to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 15; Ord. 2004-429-E, § 14; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1)
(http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/wp-content/uploads/bulldozer-on-fire.jpg)
Some things just seem so right...
A couple of gallons of laundry bleach in the tank of that clam shell crawler should do the trick... Just saying
It's amazing how fast news like that travels around the construction-demolition community. Suddenly it gets REAL hard to get any contractor to bring out their equipment.
Damn the luck.
OCKLAWAHA
I'm just curious to know if any of you guys have spoken to your neighbor about his intentions? Perhaps it's not as bad as you all think (or maybe it is, who knows??)
He initially asked to have it taken down, so he could extend his yard and put in a pool. So he asked if he could have the back porches removed, that was approved because they weren't part of the original house. That's when all of a sudden the contractor caused this structural damage, hence his way out...via an emergency demo.
Interesting: according to the City's permitting records (and the narrative above regarding demolition) the owner did not hire a contractor to remove the porches but instead did the work himself.
What exactly did the Mayor's office have to say about this? The City Council rep? The head of code enforcement? Is SPAR not the least bit concerned? RAP and the Jax Historical Society should also be worried. After all, the same rules apply throughout Jax. Jax needs an association of historic preservationists and their groups to create some political muscle. Numbers carry weight with politicos.
Did you call the Times Union, TV stations, Folio? If this can't be saved, maybe making a major PR headache over it would at least get the process changed for the future. Nothing like a bright light to send the cockroaches crawling for cover.
All of the above were sent a barrage of emails and phone calls. The mayors office did respond and did look into it. The problem is, since it's an emergency demo, per code enforcement and says it's a safety issue, virtually nothing can be done. The paperwork has been signed and it's demo is now imminent.
What needs to happen, is an investigation into this contractor and owner. Although once the house is down, all that will be left to review will be the engineer that the owner hired, and of course the one the city uses.
The sad part, aside from losing yet another house in the historic district, is that this is completely savable, and the owner wants it down. So he wins.
I don't subscribe to the decision being irreversible. The mayor's office could pressure code enforcement to reexamine their actions. They, in turn, could look at talking with the owner and suggest that if they investigate and find he and/or his contractors deceived the inspectors, there could be civil and/or criminal repercussions.
This story needs to be documented and held up as an example of a broken system. Public officials should be held accountable for fixing it. You should also name the owner, contractor, engineer, demo contractor, and code enforcement personnel involved in seeing this travesty perfected. Since they signed their names to the permits, etc., let's give them all the recognition they signed up for. ;D
Miss Fixit said that the contractor and the owner were the same per the permit.
The owner, surprise, surprise is the one negligent.
+1 stjr
Ionia, I didn't know that....this makes the stench of wrong doing even worse...and stjr, trust me, we're working with the city to try and get things changed.
From the BID website:
"Homeowner Permitting
A homeowner may permit for construction of or renovations to their primary residence providing that it is not for sale or rent and their name is on the property deed. The homeowner must appear in person at the Building Inspection Division, 214 N. Hogan Street Room 280 Jacksonville , FL 32202. (904) 630-1100 Option 4."
Obviously, if he did his own work, he was in violation because this was never his primary residence. Emphasis added.
From COJ Property Search, as of right now:
071369-0000 WILLIAMS ELAINE 1612 MARKET ST Jacksonville 32206
I think the news media needs to be contacted about the NUMEROUS cases of buildings left to fall into disrepair and thus "demo by neglect" This is a trend in these parts , not just the beautiful houses of Springfield.
There is NO GOOD REASON whatsoever , that this particular house should be demolished..It was intentionally pushed to this point, just as I see Annie Lytle School and other buildings in the city heading towards the same demise. I am so sick of this happening. When will our voices be heard and this nonsense stopped?
Not only how the structures have been allowed to get to that state, but this case is even worse. The owner bought the house with the intent to bring it down...it was denied, asked to remove the back porches, was allowed. He did the work himself, then hired an engineer and amazing how suddenly the house is unstable and deemed an emergency for demo....simply not true...the city should require him to make the repairs to stabilize. This is a classic case of how to use the system to get what you want...which is so wrong. >:(
There are still things that could be done to make this more interesting as an example in the neighborhood. Don't want to sabotage the machine of destruction? Great, then inform him that the other house next door is going to be rented out for migrant farm workers and your installing loud speakers (for "feistas") that can crank out a deafening 130 decibels ...
Tell him your considering selling your place to a washing machine repair man, have a friend look over your lot when the offending neighbor is present and tell you, "This property is perfect, I could probably get 200 washers out here in the yard!"
Explain how your Uncle Lijah in Arkansas lost his trailer house and is moving in with you with his wife and 16 children. Might help to pay some local kids to get REALLY dirty and loud and to run screaming from your door.
Get a buddy from JSO to virtually park in front of his house because of the accelerated crime rate, and make sure he explains to the curious offending neighbor what danger he is in for hanging around.
Get mad. Get REALLY mad! Question what the lynch laws are in Florida.
OCKLAWAHA ;)
right now, ock, i love you.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on January 22, 2011, 11:22:52 AM
right now, ock, i love you.
The feeling is mutual I'm sure!
Huh? 1612 Market Street? REALLY? Isn't that near a vacant lot that I hear is going to be a KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES? No, I'm sure of it. I heard the property owner is quite concerned about her standing with God, do her a favor and give a call to help HER OUT:
https://watch002.securesites.net/e/contact/submit.htm
This one is even more fun, you can order a pile of materials and have them hand delivered!
http://mormon.org/missionaries/
Lay a carton of eggs up under the edge of her house and forget about them... Within a month or so that neighbor is going to get really antsy. The egg trick is almost as good as laying a stringer of fish under the steps.
Think I have a cousin in Miami, he's into, well, "international trade," he works from a corner c-store phone in Pompano. If the other neighbor's don't mind you could maybe borrow him for a while... Oh and did I mention that I married into a large Colombian FAMILY? Yeah, well, Pablo should fit right in next door to this gal. OCKLAWAHA
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN0751.jpg)
It's coming down right now.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Why do people insist on moving into a historic district if they want to behave this way?
B/c they're given an environment that's extremely economically feasible to do such things.
Imagine what this city could be if we gave small businesses the same freedom to operate in the manner we let individuals wantonly destroy the historic fabric of our community?
Instead, we let whoever wants to tear stuff down a key to a bulldozer and a tank of gas... and hassle small business owners downtown about a) sandwich boards b) outdoor seating c) permits d) parking tickets levied on their customers ,etc.
So according to the City of Jacksonville website, this home was built in 1916? Making it 95 years old? That's older than my grandmother. What a shame.
For all the efforts of the concerned residents, it looks like this area is going to become a showcase for a few well preserved and restored historic homes, and a mix of vacant lots and cheaply-built newer wood frame and particle board houses.
Typical Jacksonville. A massive ship heading for an iceberg despite people's best attempts to steer the wheel in another direction.
You know I read somewhere on metrojacksonville or maybe myspringfield that rap spar and maybe another historic group are writing a new policy or something that applies to demolitons. whats up with that
How many more houses or buildings can be demolished before Springfield will lose its historic status? Why is this area not subject to review by the Historical department, or one that cares about the neighborhood to prevent this from happenin?
I had thought that the "Fast Tracking" was put on a hold, inorder to fully look at these situations? Did I miss something somewhere or is SPAR back at their fun and games again?
Quote from: Bativac on January 24, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
So according to the City of Jacksonville website, this home was built in 1916? Making it 95 years old? That's older than my grandmother. What a shame.
For all the efforts of the concerned residents, it looks like this area is going to become a showcase for a few well preserved and restored historic homes, and a mix of vacant lots and cheaply-built newer wood frame and particle board houses.
Typical Jacksonville. A massive ship heading for an iceberg despite people's best attempts to steer the wheel in another direction.
The MACRIS homestead proper was built in 2007! Ah, the landed gentry! (I need a smiley that moons please!)
Quote from: Bativac on January 24, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
Typical Jacksonville. A massive ship heading for an iceberg despite people's best attempts to steer the wheel in another direction.
Sorry to disillusion you Bativac, there is NOBODY steering this ship at all. OCKLAWAHA
I posted this on another site. It is evident on metrojacksonville that posters are NOT in support of this demolition. But, I'll post here too, because my points are important.
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human raceâ€
1. Just because others have fought this fight in the past (to save the houses,) certainly doesn't mean more can't fight later on down the road. We are certainly not the pioneers of preservation, I know that.
2. Just because during this "mortatorium" we have lost houses to demolition, does not mean we have not learned and "pressed on." The absolute need to address Emergency Demolitions is clearly evident based on the demolition that is going on right now. I scream this loudly: I WILL NOT GIVE UP OR GIVE IN.
3. Just because it seems like it is about "people," is is not. This journey is about the houses. WE SPEAK FOR THE HOUSES, as they can not speak for themselves.
4. This demolition will leave a very large scar on our neighborhood. We all lose. ALL of us. We can not just point fingers or place blame somewhere else. We ALL have a part in this. Whether you find a way to justify this demolition, or whether you sit idly by and do nothing. Or whether you do something else. I regret not being more vocal about demolitions early on. I regret putting my trust where I shouldn't have. I DO not regret this path I have taken with others on saving our houses. I WILL PRESS ON. I WILL NOT BE DETERED.
Quote from: mbwright on January 24, 2011, 11:31:27 AM
How many more houses or buildings can be demolished before Springfield will lose its historic status? Why is this area not subject to review by the Historical department, or one that cares about the neighborhood to prevent this from happenin?
I guess I'm confused by that, too. I'm under the impression that were I to buy and restore one of these homes, it would have to meet guidelines and specifications called for by the fact that the home is in an historic district. But to tear down the house doesn't require any similar special review? Or is it just the fact that they're able to pass the homes off as structurally unstable?
Here the pertinent legislation.
Quote518.111
Unsafe building or unsafe structure includes the following buildings and structures:
(a)Those whose walls or other structural members sag, list, lean or buckle to such an extent that they are in danger of collapse.
(b)Those with structural members which are overloaded, or which have insufficient strength to be safe for the purpose used.
(c)Those damaged by fire, wind, deterioration, or other causes to such an extent that they are dangerous to the general health or safety of the occupants or the public.
(d)Those not having exits or fire protection required by the building code or the fire prevention code.
(e)Those having any piece, part or attachment which is so insecurely fixed as to be in danger of falling or being dislodged by the elements so that it may injure any person or property.
(f)Those which are in violation of the minimum housing code, building codes, electrical code or plumbing code of the city.
(g)Unfinished construction for which the building permit has expired.
(h)Those which constitute a fire or windstorm hazard.
(i)Those which have become or are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe or unsanitary or which so utterly fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living that they are unfit for human habitation or are likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of those persons living therein.
(j)The remains, debris, walls, chimney or floors of or left from a building or structure which has partially or completely collapsed, fallen or been torn down.
(k)Any abandoned swimming pool, excavation or any septic tank which threatens or endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public.
(l)Those which have been used in whole or in part for the unauthorized manufacture, processing, refinement or creation of any illicit drug wherein hazardous chemicals are used in such process. This shall include, but is not limited to, single-family residences, individual units of multi-family structures, hotels, motels, or other public lodgings, storage units, trailers intended to be pulled behind a motor vehicle, motorized vehicles, manufactured housing, or any shop, booth, structure or garden.
QuoteSec. 518.301. - Legislative intent and findings.
The city declares every unsafe building or structure, as defined under Section 518.111, to be a public nuisance and subject to regulation. The city pursuant to authority granted by law is empowered to make regulations and take actions to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants and to present, abate and remove nuisances, to regulate the erection of buildings and all other structures, to compel the owner to provide and maintain fire escapes and other safety features, and to provide fire districts or zones and building zones; and to prohibit, regulate or suppress, or provide for the destruction and removal of any building or other structure which may be or become dangerous or detrimental to the public.
QuoteSec. 518.304. - Abatement by city.
In the event the unsafe structure is not demolished or the repair or other work is not performed within the time and as required by the Chief or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, the Chief shall cause the demolition or repair or other work, including, but not limited to, boarding to be performed by independent contractors, city employees, or such other qualified means as available. The Chief may also initiate prosecution for violation of this Chapter. The Chief may temporarily defer demolition or repair work when it is in the best interest of the city to do so. Such deferral shall be documented in the property file explaining the reasons for the deferral. Furthermore, no historic landmark or contributing structure which lies within an historic district (as designated by the appropriate federal, state or local authority) and which has been declared unsafe, except those structures which have been defined to be unsafe pursuant to Section 518.111 (unsafe building or unsafe structure) (c), (k), (l) or (m), shall be demolished by the city until the Chief has received approval of such proposed demolition from the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (Commission), pursuant to Section 307.113, Ordinance Code.
QuoteSec. 518.404. - Vacant substandard property.
Vacant properties found to be in violation of this Part may be placarded or noticed as such and required to remain vacant until brought into compliance with the provisions of this Part. In no case shall a structure be allowed to remain boarded in excess of six months after being boarded pursuant to this Chapter, except as provided herein. The Chief may approve a vacant building for occupancy pending repairs when such action is deemed by him/her to be in the best interest of the city.
Quote from: letters and numbers on January 24, 2011, 11:23:12 AM
You know I read somewhere on metrojacksonville or maybe myspringfield that rap spar and maybe another historic group are writing a new policy or something that applies to demolitons. whats up with that
The Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Department are drafting legislation to allow the mothballing of buildings in order to avoid demolitions. Community groups and individuals have been participating with the discussions of the proposed new ordinance. That work is being done by the demolitions committee of the JHPC. If you want to participate, please attend the committee meetings.
The next public meeting of the JHPC is this Wednesday, January 26th, beginning at 3:00 p.m. at the Ed Ball Building, 8th floor. The meetings last a while, so the end of the agenda where committee reports are taken up do not usually occurr until 6:00 p.m. or later. There is no demolition committee report on the agenda for that meeting, as the agenda was set before this demolition took place. To the extent the public wants to comment on this demolition, that would occur at the end of the agenda. The next meeting for the demolitions committee is anticipated to occur in February, for a date t.b.d.
Quote from: Bativac on January 24, 2011, 12:54:53 PM
Quote from: mbwright on January 24, 2011, 11:31:27 AM
How many more houses or buildings can be demolished before Springfield will lose its historic status? Why is this area not subject to review by the Historical department, or one that cares about the neighborhood to prevent this from happenin?
I guess I'm confused by that, too. I'm under the impression that were I to buy and restore one of these homes, it would have to meet guidelines and specifications called for by the fact that the home is in an historic district. But to tear down the house doesn't require any similar special review? Or is it just the fact that they're able to pass the homes off as structurally unstable?
I know...funny ain't it?
I'm heartsick over this.
Many of us are.
All of us should be.
What's sickening is the only person that responded to me(after multiple attempts) was someone that wasn't even on your list Sheclown.
Real responsive government we have around here.
We hassle small business and give them an environment that is artificially difficult to compete in while our economy crumbles around us and our unemployment rate cripples hope of a meaningful recovery... yet we allow the wanton destruction of the mere fraction of the remaining historic stock left in one of the city's nationally recognized historic districts.
Isn't it crazy how those roles aren't reversed?!?!
Quote from: sheclown on January 24, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
I'm heartsick over this.
Many of us are.
All of us should be.
+1 Not just heartsick. Disgusted. Fed up . Worried. Key persons in our City Government do not give a damn about Historic Buildings ( this is obvious and has been the case at least throughout my lifetime and probably well before)
Not sure how to make this stop...before anything that resembles Historic Fabric is no more in this City.
This is "Rigged Demolition" Deliberate measures taken so that demolition will be guaranteed.
Much Like Annie Lytle School will eventually meet its demise.. No practical maintenance done on it since or before 1960, and so , it eventually becomes so dangerous, that Demolition is granted with no argument. That is exactly what is taking place there.
plenty of original features left, trim and doors:
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN0751-1.jpg)
even door knobs
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN0751-1-1.jpg)
Jacksonville, Where history dies.
Much of this could have been salvaged. There is no reason to behave in this manner. Since there are obvious violations by multible parties, owner, various city agencies, etc, who can bring charges? The city and owner are in violation of most of the code that was stated here earlier, including the original building permit, stement that it was unstable (as caused by the owner). Why no checks and balances? "trust us, we're with the government" does not work.
I think at this point it's obvious that the people of Jacksonville, by and large, care nothing for the history of their city or for structures that have been in place for a hundred years or better. The people in the government don't care, the people living here don't care, only a handful of people are really concerned about the fact that anything in Jacksonville that was built by previous generations is being torn down. I've about given up on Jacksonville.
Complaints fall on deaf ears. Doesn't matter who you are or who you're complaining to. I guess I can sort of understand wanting to give someone the right to do what they choose with their property but these homes aren't like the millions of 1950s ranch homes we have around town.
It's always ironic, to me, that these homes are torn down without a second thought, but that great pains were taken to preserve that stupid orange dinosaur on Beach Blvd.
I think the leaders of MJ should present this story to the mayoral candidates and ask for on-the-record responses to how they feel about historic preservation. Go for it!
Anyone got friends in the Mainstream Media around here that could get this story picked up? Because (sadly) that's still how a lot of people get their information.
I think its time to start playing hardball with these clowns & put down the paint brushes for now. Some embarrassment needs to happen...and soon.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/joeandcat065-1.jpg)
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
--Dylan Thomas
Quote from: sheclown on January 25, 2011, 04:59:09 PM
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/joeandcat065-1.jpg)
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
--Dylan Thomas
Like it was never even there.....
I am sorry we could not save this house.
It's just not right.
Fixation on minutia robs us of significant action.
The only significant discussion about Springfield properties ought to be how to save the ones in danger.
All other discussion: window size, fence & siding material, door placement, is bullshit, if these houses are quickly and quietly destroyed.
Let me ask you Springfielder's this, "Now that a homeowner has wantenly (based on the facts present) destroyed an historic home next to his own to benefit him/herself, what will you do to prevent this from happening in the future?"
Based on what I saw and read here, someone used the 'system' to have a house removed. Who pays for the demolition? Are there fines to be assessed to the property owner or do they get off Scott free? ;) I ask you these questions because it appears on the outskirts that someone has figured out the blueprint to remove the historic homes from the area: Buy some lots with homes on them, do some shoddy/shady demo based on legitimate permits that were pulled on the home to enhance it for the current owner and then have them torn to the ground because the 'repairs' accidentally hurt the home more than helped.
If I'm a developer or part of a development group, I just learned how to clear an entire block at someone else's (taxpayer's presumably) expense so I can do what I want.
So saddending....Why does the district having historic status not protect all of its buildings????
The correct windows, siding, door openings are important if your historic district is safe and stable.
We spend all of our HPC energy on such "luxuries" discussing them ad nauseum (and have for years) while we lose house after house after house.
Put in the wrong windows and the city will make your life miserable...
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/IMG_2697-1.jpg)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,10033.0.html
What is wrong with this historic preservation strategy when windows become more important than houses?
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN0751.jpg)
SPAR is a 4-letter word.
Is the contractor that did the 'shoddy' work going to be barred from doing further work in the neighborhood, or for that matter the entire city? Is there no penalty for 'repairing' a house so badly that it (supposedly) has to be demolished??
Quote from: vicupstate on January 26, 2011, 10:00:42 AM
Is the contractor that did the 'shoddy' work going to be barred from doing further work in the neighborhood, or for that matter the entire city? Is there no penalty for 'repairing' a house so badly that it (supposedly) has to be demolished??
Turns out the owner did it himself, "accidentally" after his application for a demolition had been denied.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 26, 2011, 10:00:42 AM
Is the contractor that did the 'shoddy' work going to be barred from doing further work in the neighborhood, or for that matter the entire city? Is there no penalty for 'repairing' a house so badly that it (supposedly) has to be demolished??
Turns out the owner did it himself, "accidentally" after his application for a demolition had been denied.
Let me get this straight. A homeowner, in a nationally recognized historic district (that's under the watchful eye of SPAR, whom of which gets pissed if you paint your door the wrong color), can just go into his/her own house (that was perfectly fine before & passed inspections), sabotage it so that it has to be emergency demoed just so their greedy fat ass can have a bigger land lot, and nothing happens to the said home owner for this??
So what the hell is the point in it being a "protected" historic district & all of these board members with their noses up everyone's ass then?? Someone fill me in 'cause I'm sorta missing that part.
Document Type: (DEED) DEED
Modified Date:
Record Date : 4/14/2010 8:33:45 AM
Event Date : Not Available
Grantor: U S BANK NATL ASSN TRS
Grantee: WILLIAMS ELAINE
Book Type: OR
Book / Page: 15212 / 694
# of Pages: 2
Consideration: 25,000.00
Legal Description
Legal: S1/2 L13 B32 EAST SPRINGFIELD
Is the city so far behind in recording sale documents that the owner listed in the property search site is STILL Elaine Williams?
Quote from: peestandingup on January 26, 2011, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 26, 2011, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 26, 2011, 10:00:42 AM
Is the contractor that did the 'shoddy' work going to be barred from doing further work in the neighborhood, or for that matter the entire city? Is there no penalty for 'repairing' a house so badly that it (supposedly) has to be demolished??
Turns out the owner did it himself, "accidentally" after his application for a demolition had been denied.
Let me get this straight. A homeowner, in a nationally recognized historic district (that's under the watchful eye of SPAR, whom of which gets pissed if you paint your door the wrong color), can just go into his/her own house (that was perfectly fine before & passed inspections), sabotage it so that it has to be emergency demoed just so their greedy fat ass can have a bigger land lot, and nothing happens to the said home owner for this??
So what the hell is the point in it being a "protected" historic district & all of these board members with their noses up everyone's ass then?? Someone fill me in 'cause I'm sorta missing that part.
"This guy wants to put WHAT kind of windows in his house?? Absolutely not!!! I demand satisfaction!!! That trim wasn't in use until 1918 and city records indicate this home was built in 1916!!! Which speed dial button connects me with code enforcement?"
"This other guy wants to do WHAT? Tear down his house? To extend his lot? ...Well, what the hell, it's his house, after all. Plus it looks old. Better safe than sorry."
I don't know if it's SPAR or the City or whoever. It just seems like this neighborhood is a lot of trouble for somebody who wants to buy and restore an old home. You don't know from one day to the next whether the house next door or across the street is gonna be gone the next morning, not to mention whether you'll be fined because you put the wrong shingles on your porch roof...
But yet San Marco or Riverside don't have this problem.
JUST Springfield.
QuoteBut yet San Marco or Riverside don't have this problem.
B/c the neighborhood organizations simply don't let it happen.
That's the difference. A unified voice with the implicit backing of many people can do that for a neighborhood.
Quote from: iloveionia on January 26, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
But yet San Marco or Riverside don't have this problem.
JUST Springfield.
San Marco and Riverside/Avondale are very different neighborhoods than Springfield.
Years ago, Riverside was affected by demolitions gone wild. RAP was formed and the neighborhood stabilized over a period of time. San Marco has always been fairly well maintained and demos just haven't been an issue.
Today, property values in those areas are too high for a neighbor to purchase the house next door and tear it down just to increase the size of his lot.
Neither San Marco nor Riverside has any significant number of derelict buildings that might be targeted for demolition. The cost of renovating houses that have never fallen into extreme disrepair is much lower, so you can buy a house, fix it up, and possibly get your money out (maybe even make some) at the end of the day.
San Marco isn't even officially an historic district, so the rules are not the same.
Demolitions and nuisance houses are simply not big issues in San Marco, Riverside and Avondale. Springfield's gonna have to tackle this problem largely on its own.....
Quote from: peestandingup on January 26, 2011, 11:29:24 AM
Let me get this straight. A homeowner, in a nationally recognized historic district (that's under the watchful eye of SPAR, whom of which gets pissed if you paint your door the wrong color), can just go into his/her own house (that was perfectly fine before & passed inspections), sabotage it so that it has to be emergency demoed just so their greedy fat ass can have a bigger land lot, and nothing happens to the said home owner for this??
Come on man, you left out burning it to the ground as an optional approved method. QuoteBy Shannon Womble
Times-Union staff writer,
Arson investigators are trying to determine what sparked four Springfield house fires yesterday.
All the houses were vacant.
Fire broke out about 11:20 a.m. in a house in the 1300 block of Hart Street. Twenty minutes later, a second house burned only four blocks away at 748 Minnie St. At noon, a third fire started in a home at 612 Lee St. Firefighters battled a fourth blaze about 3:30 p.m. at 3726 Evergreen St.
''To have that many fires in that short of a time frame is unusual,'' said Larry Thomas, Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department spokesman.
No firefighters were injured in any of the fires.
Damage estimates as a result of the fires weren't available yesterday.
QuoteSpringfield fire injures two
Two people were injured this morning in a Springfield house fire caused by a faulty extension cord, while a woman escaped injury when her Riverside home burned, said Lt. Mike Peery, a fire department spokesman.
(http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/ioniastreetjustin.jpg)
â€" Ionia St. fire photo by Steve Gerbert/Jacksonville Fire and Rescue
An hour later, firefighters were called to the 1700 block of Ionia Street, where they found heavy fire coming from a second-floor apartment in back of the Springfield property. Two people who live in the garage apartment were found on the ground, apparently from jumping off the second story. The victims, whose identities were not available, were taken to Shands Jacksonville hospital in stable condition, Peery said.
The fire was caused by a faulty extension cord that was hooked up to a heater, Perry said. There were no smoke detectors in the apartment, he said.
Peery said anyone wishing to receive a free smoke detector can call 630-CITY.
â€" Jim Schoettler
Quote
(http://inlinethumb20.webshots.com/44691/2143896120104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
By JIM SCHOETTLER
The Times-Union
A fire that destroyed a vacant two-story home in Springfield this morning may have been deliberately set, fire officials said.
The blaze in the 200 block of East Third Street was the second in the two-story wood frame home in seven hours, said Lt. Mike Peery, a fire department spokesman. He said both fires were suspicious. Peery said the first fire was reported about 1 a.m. A neighbor said that blaze occurred in the home’s second floor and was quickly extinguished. Firefighters got the second call about 8 a.m. and found the home engulfed in flames when they arrived.
Officials said it took about 25 firefighters less than 10 minutes to control the blaze. There were no injuries.
Peery said the home was being renovated, but had no electricity.
Neighbor Mike Lippo said the homeowner threw out a mattress and other items belonging to homeless people Sunday afternoon. He said he didn’t know if those people returned.
Lippo said he was alerted to the fire by a man who works at a nearby convenience store. He said he went back into his home, noticed an orange glow coming from the back and went through a rear door. The fire was burning 30 feet away.
“Flames were going from the first floor through the second floor and the roof,†said Lippo, 42. “The heat was unbelievable.â€
The fire had East Third Street blocked from Market to Liberty streets. The street is now open.
QuoteRachel Davis
Fire damages home
A fire that officials called suspicious caused an estimated $50,000 damage Friday to a vacant Springfield house.
OCKLAWAHA
Unfortunately, lots of historic houses that don't constitute a "district" have disappeared from Jax as well. In many ways, these "orphans" are much more endangered by demolition. Go through Wayne Wood's book and see how many historic buildings are left from it in San Jose, Mandarin, Loretto, Arlington, St. Nicholas, Clifton, etc. Not many. As the value of land has risen in the suburbs, these often simpler rural style wood frame "farm" homes, frequently on prime acreage suitable for a shopping center or housing development, have been removed forever.
As time marches on, I think we need to consider higher protections for all buildings built prior to WWII (that would now be 70 plus years old). After the war, buildings appear to have taken on less character and craftsmanship as volume building began to take hold.
Quote from: stjr on January 26, 2011, 04:35:51 PM
Unfortunately, lots of historic houses that don't constitute a "district" have disappeared from Jax as well. In many ways, As time marches on, I think we need to consider higher protections for all buildings built prior to WWII (that would now be 70 plus years old). After the war, buildings appear to have taken on less character and craftsmanship as volume building began to take hold.
hey, the same thing happened in germany! the 'neubauten' tend to look like frosted ass and collapse like a drunk in an earthquake. maybe something about WWII just sapped all the architecture out ov people.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 26, 2011, 03:04:35 PM
QuoteBut yet San Marco or Riverside don't have this problem.
B/c the neighborhood organizations simply don't let it happen.
That's the difference. A unified voice with the implicit backing of many people can do that for a neighborhood.
Actually, a similar event happened a few months ago in Riverside. There was a house on Orleans Court that was for sale, the neighbor purchased and subsequently demolished it so that he could enlarge his backyard. He put up a fence, basketball hoop and trampoline. Pretty sad.
Again....Bottom line not nearly enough people especially people who govern the City, CARE about historic structures. If one has enough money , or political pull, or good attorneys they can accomplish anything they want. With regard to this most recently destroyed structure , there is absolutely NO good reason for destroying it. At the very least, they could have let someone come in and strip all of the the reusable features of the house to be used on restoration/renovation projects elsewhere in Springfield . No regard for even that.
As another poster stated, I have lost faith in this City and it's total lack of regard for anything that was ever beautiful or older in design or significant . I cannot imagine what it will look like in two more decades if it continues as it has for the last half-century. There will be nothing left . We have neighborhoods with deed restrictions that are utterly ridiculous in their expectations, yet we have a Historic PROMINENT neighborhood of Jacksonville ,where pretty much , anything goes, as has many important significant and Historic Downtown Structures. No regard at all and this is the trend that is evidently to continue. We have a current Government that does not care, and I am ,sadly , pretty sure no one in the Mayoral race who is going to have any regard for saving our historic homes and Buildings. So sad and unfair to those who really wish to see these places spared.
The person who acquired the building probably never entertained giving the building to someone to move or to dismantle to reuse pieces of it. Never a consideration. just get it down and gone, just like all of the other great buildings that have been razed.
It is scary that we live in a City/County/ World where few voices are heard unless they have wealth or political pull.
the building owner posted his side ov the story over on myspringfield. it sounded like hogwash to me, but everyöne should probably read it and draw their own conclusions.
Here is his post: http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1086&sid=1dc1ff5949ebd77cafabd6e297f723e8#p8842
Quoteby AMacris » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:43 pm
There has been much misinformation and speculation from certain parties regarding 1612 Market, that I thought I should give the silent majority the other side to the story from the actual HOME OWNER's perspective.
When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished. After discussing the idea with HPC, they made me believe this was unlikely to happen. So while I discussed total demolition at that time with HPC, it was never formally requested nor formally denied.
It was made very clear to me by HPC that the only option was to rehab the structure. At this point, I began the discovery process of what it would actually take to fix the laundry list of codes violations that were now placed on the property, including the roof, siding, facia, porch, and paint. Codes gave me 60 days to bring the structure up to code or they were going to fine us $250 a day until it was corrected. Hearing that, we jumped on the rehab, getting quotes, discussing options with contractors, etc. At this point, I came before HPC to present my plan. This included a new roof, fixing the rotten siding and facia, front porch, paint, etc. We also requested removing a non-original two-story rear porch enclosure. This plan was approved by HPC and work commenced. My mindset at this time was rehabbing the structure.
The new roof went on the structure at a significant expense to me. I also had to replace more than 50% of the planks on the roof. Around that time, I had to appear before the special master regarding the violations still existing on the property. I was given 180 days to correct the remaining structure.
The next item was to take off the non-original back porch enclosure. This is a major point of contention I have with certain parties. They speculate that I masterminded the structural defects of this property during this process. Untrue. The back was painstakingly removed -- by hand. It took a five-person crew four days to do it, at a cost double what it would have been to do it mechanically. And no, despite what you may have read on the boards, it wasn't me who performed the work. The structure of the main house was virtually unaffected, as it rested on its own foundation, and had much of the original exterior wall in place. Any implications otherwise are pure fiction.
After removing the back portion, we revealed extreme structural damage. This damage was previously hidden by the enclosure, not caused by the removal of the enclosure. After seeing this damage, I brought in an independent structural engineer to give me his assessment of the property. This report came back and detailed a house in critical structural failure. At this point, I'd invested many thousands of dollars beyond the original purchase price and had uncovered the need to virtually replace the structure of the house. It was the engineer's professional and licensed opinion that it come down.
It was then that I contacted my inspector. Inspector O'Laughlin and I reviewed the property and he said it needed to be condemned. At that point, the city brought several other stakeholders, including their engineer, who independently corroborated my engineer's report. Two engineers agreed this property is an imminent safety hazard. After that, this matter was completely out of my hands. And access to the property for any sort of salvage operation became impossible -- and illegal. Shortly thereafter, we were issued a 72-hour order for demolition.
These are the facts. And this is all my family will say regarding this matter.
Now, the question remains, where do we go from here?
This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?
My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here.
I realize this is a non-PC stand. And folks are reluctant to go on record for fear of being outcast. After all, it's much easier to wave the flag for rehab. But folks, it will take more than friending SOS on Facebook. Rehabbing scores of critically failing homes without the market incentives to do so will take an eternity. To make a dent in this problem, we will need an organization that's capable of raising millions. Is SOS that organization? SPAR? Sustainable Springfield? All of them? Or something else? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know we need to come together and find an answer.
The community we live in is more than just the homes. I can honestly say I have more friends here than in any other neighborhood I've ever lived. After this, I realize some of you may think of me differently. Maybe even hate me. That's something you and I will have to live with, and I accept it. But I won't dwell on it.
Hmm, probably not much he could do if that's all true.
I wonder just how many homes in Springfield are in this sort of shape (gone past the point of no return) & are hiding their flaws?? I'd guess it's a lot. Maybe more than enough to lose it's historical moniker.
So, I guess my point is, there's really no money for people to fix up these homes with (with all thats going on nowadays) & there likely won't be for a long time. Is it better to mothball these homes (many of which may never be rehabbed anyway for either financial or structural reasons), or go ahead & tear them down while gritting your teeth & try to bring new innovative life to where they once stood (without a lot of the BS restrictions), but if that process possibly means losing the historic moniker?? Should Springfield even continue to be an "historic district" anyway or is it doing more harm than good to keep that recognition??
Buried in there is this paragraph:
"This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?
My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here."
I actually agree with much of this. Are there enough volunteers to stabilize homes that are or may be in danger of falling apart? The city does not have money, or will not spend money, to perform this type of work. So where does the money or the labor come from?
He does bring up one of my fears, back when my wife and I were looking for a home in 2008 - what if we buy the place, it looks good, then we open it up and it turns out to be unliveable? That was certainly a factor in our decision to buy elsewhere.
Hm. I've heard his side of the story and now I'm not sure how to feel about the whole thing. All I know is it's a shame another house was torn down, regardless of the reasoning.
Quote from: Bativac on January 27, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
Buried in there is this paragraph:
"This case brings out into the open a very real problem that no one seems to want to discuss -- or have the courage to discuss. That is, what do we do about the homes throughout the district in similar conditions? We can rant all we want about the need to save all homes at any cost. But ranting doesn't do anything positive. What we need are dollars. And loads of them. If we decide as a community that all houses must be saved regardless of their condition, we need to confront the economics of the situation. That is, it makes zero economic sense to rehab a home that is beyond a certain point. It's a guaranteed negative return. Can we really afford to wait for a critical mass of people who can afford to pay anything to live here? Would those people that could afford to pay anything want to live here? Would we want them?
My thought is, instead of focusing on preventing demolition of homes that are too far gone, focus your energy on raising MONEY to assist those homes and homeowners that can be saved. And prioritize that list based on their historical contribution to the community. The bottom line is that we need more good people moving in to the historic district. Great deals on rehab-able homes will bring them here. And incentives we as a community could provide to new homeowners could go a long way. On the other hand, abandoned, boarded up and critically unsafe homes that have no potential for rehab keep many of those people away. I, for one, support the demolition of these unsafe buildings immediately. If there are salvagable materials, by all means, they should be recovered, if safe to do so. Let's wipe the slate clean and give people the opportunity to rebuild. The question is, where do you draw the line? What stays and what goes? Obviously, there are decidedly differing opinions here."
I actually agree with much of this. Are there enough volunteers to stabilize homes that are or may be in danger of falling apart? The city does not have money, or will not spend money, to perform this type of work. So where does the money or the labor come from?
He does bring up one of my fears, back when my wife and I were looking for a home in 2008 - what if we buy the place, it looks good, then we open it up and it turns out to be unliveable? That was certainly a factor in our decision to buy elsewhere.
Hm. I've heard his side of the story and now I'm not sure how to feel about the whole thing. All I know is it's a shame another house was torn down, regardless of the reasoning.
Yeah, they were my fears as well when my wife & I were seriously considering selling our current home to buy in Spr last year. We toured a lot of fixer uppers that probably had similarly hidden ghosts in their closets just waiting to be uncovered.
I think really, the truly unfortunate thing with Spr is the timing. Had this passion & resurgence started earlier (when the money was good) & done properly, I think it would have been mostly restored by now & be in the clear. But couple that with our current economic crisis & the artificial boom (then complete bust) over there, not to mention what city it's in (one who obviously couldn't give 2 shits about preservation), etc, may have sealed her doom. At least as far as saving a lot of her historic stock.
So do you keep on mothballing homes that could very well be beyond salvation both structural wise & financial wise (which could in turn very well be holding the neighborhood back), or let them go, lose the historic recognition, but with a grand scheme to reinvent the neighborhood into something else & allow much more freedom to do so??
QuoteWhen I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished.
So he bought a house that he thought should be demolished...only to sink a bunch of money into it before eventually tearing it down??
Am I the only one that finds this odd???? ???
Quote from: AmyLynne on January 27, 2011, 04:08:38 PM
QuoteWhen I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished.
So he bought a house that he thought should be demolished...only to sink a bunch of money into it before eventually tearing it down??
Am I the only one that finds this odd???? ???
LOL, yes
A lot of what he is saying in the subsequent paragraphs seem reasonable, as long as you ignore that first paragraph.
I just got done with a house built in 1890ish that was in so much worse shape than this one. Hell it was straight MISSING piers.
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
The guy is full of crap. I think it's clear to anyone with any moderate ability to read between the lines that, as he admitted himself, he bought it with the intent of demolishing it, likely to increase the size of his yard. He whines about the threat of fines and the expense of fixing it up, all of which he knew before he ever bought it. The guy bought it with the intent of knocking it down and increasing the size of his own yard, and simply concocted a fake emergency and the threat of fines and renovation costs, all of which he could have avoided by not buying it in the first place.
What a total crock of B.S.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.
Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??
Quote from: peestandingup on January 27, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.
Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??
I don't know about you...but if I had sunk so much money into a house, I wouldn't have been so willing to accept the demo without so much as a whimper!!
Quote from: peestandingup on January 27, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.
Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??
How can you call it a "change of heart" when demolition was actually what he admits wanting from the beginning?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:51:42 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on January 27, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.
Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??
How can you call it a "change of heart" when demolition was actually what he admits wanting from the beginning?
I didn't, I just asked if its possible. Its not like me (or you) know this guy & know the whole story yet. All we know is what we've talked about here & what he's said on the other forum. Let's not automatically assume the worst before we have all the info.
Which is why I asked if he could show proof of all the repairs to the roof & such that he said he did (and paid big bucks for allegedly). Isn't that fair??
Yeah, except I think what happened is he wanted to knock it down, was told that'd be OK, then was feeling pressured by Preservation S.O.S. and neighbors so he started renovating it, only to later get frustrated and say "screw it" and knock it down anyway. Which is what he wanted from the beginning.
If he didn't want to deal with renovating that house, you know what he should've done? Not buy it.
Quote from: peestandingup on January 27, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Which is why I asked if he could show proof of all the repairs to the roof & such that he said he did (and paid big bucks for allegedly). Isn't that fair??
Big bucks? Hardly. But he did do a re-roof around 07/2010 for around $5,300 (that is an estimate provided by the roofing contractor for permitting fees)
https://buildinginspections.coj.net/bid_secure/default.aspx
I was called in on this house after the owner found out that it most likely would not be approved for demolition. From the description given me over the phone and e-mails, I though I would find the second floor ceiling sitting on the floor, but what I found was a few water stains on the ceiling. This house was in good shape. I gave the owner a bid that covered all the items that would allow code enforcement to close it's case. It was under 10K. Later, after he decided that to get good access from his yard on the corner to this back yard he had to tear off the rear porch and addition, he called me back in to access the sill damage and my partner and I (over 30 years historic house experience between the two of us) end up with a verbal bid to him of still less that 10K for all the structural work, including both the new found and the previously known work. About this time, the guy started to put me off.
I now know why he put me off, he wanted and found someone to give him the ammunition to get rid of this house and do what he initially bought the property for. Do not let his post fool you. This house was a very affordable fix and he, the structural engineer and contractor he got to support his wishes and I know it.
The owner is not a bad guy. I give him credit, he played the system well. But do not make excuses for him. I also know that the Historic Department is intending at this point to pursue legal actions against him. I hope they succeed.
This madness has to stop. We have lost far too many houses to these unfounded and often made up "unsafe to walk by" claims. They are not being taken for any valid reason, they are being taken for purely social, and in this case, selfish reasons.
You will hear much more of this subject of demolitions in Springfield in the weeks to come. The fight is on.
Well, the house is gone now.
And truth is, whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not, it was demolished according to the 500 (don't know number,) code.
There were 2 structural reports that said "unsound."
The letter of the written law was followed.
Period.
Safety is in the hands of the Chief of MCCD, no one else. And according to the present code, she did her job.
Period.
NOW. That said, we must focus on learning from this and what changes and collaboration in the city can occur to prevent what some believe to be unnecessary.
My house on Ionia was condemned for 10 years. Gutted. A mess. A MESS. They demolished a rear service porch, and the back part of the house split in half!!! My house had to be jacked up and put back together!!!! The front porch had 2 piers and it was collapsing. My house was certainly unstable, but I took the route of stabilizing it, but know that I didn't have to, I could have legally had it demolished according to the code (safety.)
It would be nice if structural reports could offer alternatives to demolition. Okay, the structure is unstable, but by doing (fill in the blank,) it could be structurally sound and not be a safety risk.
Just saying. I don't like the fact that this house is gone. But truth is the written code was followed. It's just a matter of closing in on the "loop hole" as some may call it.
Who paid for this demo? I am assuming the taxpayer?
No.
The property owner of 1612 Market paid for the demolition.
Not the city.
The problem is not really with code enforcement. Their mission is public safety and their concern is normally "unsafe to live in". We are hearing them claim houses are "unsafe to walk by" and they do not have the expertise to decide that. Nor apparently do the structural engineers they use. It can be a safe bet that any structure can be called unsafe with any damage what so ever, so an owner or the city paying for a engineer to confirm a structure unsafe is a no brainier. It is the historic nature of these houses and understanding how they can be fixed that should be used here and it is not. That is what we need to be changing, the criteria used to evaluate these houses. Only that will prevent another Market street from happening.
regarding the concept ov 'unsafe to walk by', has any house in springfield (or, for that matter, anywhere) ever fallen on someöne walking by? i'm just kind ov curious how these determinations are made. between work and my explorations, i've been in some really awful structures, but i've never seen anything bad enough that i felt uncomfortable even beïng near the place.
I think you guys are forgetting the reality of the world we live in. Go to the hospital and tell a doctor you have a headache. You will have blood tests, ekgs, ct scans, etc... just in case you have more than a headache. This way the doctor is covered in the event of you falling dead in the street as you walk out the door.
The same rule is applied when you bring and engineer in to look at a structure. Their personal opinion might be that it's OK, maybe add a support beam, but their professional opinion will always lean towards CYOA. What happens if they say the structure is sound and it gets hit by a 100mph gust of wind and falls over?
They're just protecting themselves. And I don't know any engineer that is ever happy with the way something 'is', it can always be improved upon - and this comes from building that they themselves engineered. The moment it was going up - I wish I had added [insert more or this] or I wish I had [insert building method] differently.
Quote from: strider on January 28, 2011, 09:42:25 AM
It is the historic nature of these houses and understanding how they can be fixed that should be used here and it is not. That is what we need to be changing, the criteria used to evaluate these houses. Only that will prevent another Market street from happening.
+1
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 28, 2011, 10:58:54 AM
I think you guys are forgetting the reality of the world we live in. Go to the hospital and tell a doctor you have a headache. You will have blood tests, ekgs, ct scans, etc... just in case you have more than a headache. This way the doctor is covered in the event of you falling dead in the street as you walk out the door.
The same rule is applied when you bring and engineer in to look at a structure. Their personal opinion might be that it's OK, maybe add a support beam, but their professional opinion will always lean towards CYOA. What happens if they say the structure is sound and it gets hit by a 100mph gust of wind and falls over?
They're just protecting themselves. And I don't know any engineer that is ever happy with the way something 'is', it can always be improved upon - and this comes from building that they themselves engineered. The moment it was going up - I wish I had added [insert more or this] or I wish I had [insert building method] differently.
Occam's Razor, Westsider, Occam's Razor...
Think about it. Isn't it more likely that the real glaring problem is probably the the profit-motive of our present corporatized healthcare system? If you follow the history on this, the rise in healthcare costs coincided almost exactly with the sudden expansion of the huge hospital chains. So what's more likely, that some legalese conspiracy theory is in play, or that the hospital makes more money billing the insurance carriers for bloodwork, EKGs, and all of that for as many people as they can? It's not as though we don't know this is going on, we just busted one of these huge corporate chains that bought up all the hospitals padding their bills by $1.3 Billion in Florida alone. And we were so outraged we elected its CEO governor, LMFAO. But that's another debate entirely. Anyway, if you really think it's about some blanket fear of being sued, then walk in there and tell them you have no insurance (in Florida, they're required to treat you anyway) just as an experiment, and watch how little they offer you compared to your normal experience.
I mean, come on. These people are just blatantly bloating their own profit margins and blaming it on everything other than the fact that, if they didn't send the insurance companies huge bills, they wouldn't receive huge payments. Let's boil it back down to the actual cause here. Legal expenses are less than 2% of total healthcare costs, and there has been a 114% increase in healthcare costs over the past 10 years. You are welcome to focus on that 2% all you like, but wouldn't it be just a bit more effective to focus on the other 112% of the problem? lol
And regarding these old houses, the same thing is going on. This isn't some CYA consipiracy, it's that the present state of the preservation regulations and municipal code are set up so that an owner who wants a place gone, in this case because he wants a larger yard, can just call in however many engineers it takes until he finds one that needs the money and is willing to say whatever he wants. Which is pretty easy these days, the construction business isn't exactly booming. Then it's just a matter of submitting it and because he's technically followed the letter of the vague regulations, the structure comes down regardless of whether there was actually anything wrong with it.
When it comes to this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out what's going on. Follow the money.
FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure, so that these demolition requests aren't considered solely on the basis of an opinion paid for by the very same guy who wants it demolished in the first place. Kind of a ridiculous conflict of interest there...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2011, 12:16:26 PM
FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure
Yes. And the criteria should be absolutely different for old homes. They are indeed built different from today's standards.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2011, 12:16:26 PM
Occam's Razor, Westsider, Occam's Razor...
I'll refer to:
QuoteHickam's dictum which succinctly states that "patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please". It is often statistically more likely that a patient has several common diseases, rather than having a single rarer disease which explains their myriad symptoms. Also, independently of statistical likelihood, some patients do in fact turn out to have multiple diseases, which by common sense nullifies the approach of insisting to explain any given collection of symptoms with one disease. These misgivings emerge from simple probability theoryâ€"which is already taken into account in many modern variations of the razorâ€"and from the fact that the loss function is much greater in medicine than in most of general science. Because misdiagnosis can result in the loss of a person's health and potentially life, it is considered better to test and pursue all reasonable theories even if there is some theory that appears the most likely.
This can apply to both the doctor or the engineer example that I used above. Either way, it's still CYA.
Well, I think you missed the point of my post somewhat. But let me ask you this then, since your quote clearly demomstrates that the medical profession feels the testing is needed to rule out multi-cause symtoms, is that actually "Covering Your Ass" or just providing proper treatmemt? After reading that I kind of take issue with your assessment, as I thought you were referring to clear instances of overcharging (which happens often) I didn't realize you were apparently redefining basic sound diagnostic procedures as wasteful.
I was referring to some of these for-profit private providers charging for a $3k MRI for a hangnail, I wasn't referring to a test necessary to rule out or narrow down potential causes. This kind of changes things.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
Well, I think you missed the point of my post somewhat. But let me ask you this then, since your quote clearly demomstrates that the medical profession feels the testing is needed to rule out multi-cause symtoms, is that actually "Covering Your Ass" or just providing proper treatmemt? After reading that I kind of take issue with your assessment, as I thought you were referring to clear instances of overcharging (which happens often) I didn't realize you were apparently redefining basic sound diagnostic procedures as wasteful.
I was referring to some of these for-profit private providers charging for a $3k MRI for a hangnail, I wasn't referring to a test necessary to rule out or narrow down potential causes. This kind of changes things.
It's kind of one in the same i.m.o. with the medical field. Yes, they will charge for every test they run, but they can justify it because of their basis of 'proper treatment' or 'no stone left unturned' - whichever theory you subscribe to.
Yeah and then add the profit motive in and it gets nauseating, I have been testy on this issue ever since channel 4 busted OPMC here in town for charging a sick woman $70 for a single aspirin, and $18 per pair of latex gloves.
yep, and I totally agree, but the only defense it to a.) pay out of the ass for health insurance or b.) don't have insurance and don't pay the bill.
Quote
And regarding these old houses, the same thing is going on. This isn't some CYA consipiracy, it's that the present state of the preservation regulations and municipal code are set up so that an owner who wants a place gone, in this case because he wants a larger yard, can just call in however many engineers it takes until he finds one that needs the money and is willing to say whatever he wants. Which is pretty easy these days, the construction business isn't exactly booming. Then it's just a matter of submitting it and because he's technically followed the letter of the vague regulations, the structure comes down regardless of whether there was actually anything wrong with it.
When it comes to this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out what's going on. Follow the money.
FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure, so that these demolition requests aren't considered solely on the basis of an opinion paid for by the very same guy who wants it demolished in the first place. Kind of a ridiculous conflict of interest there...
...and there you have it.
Quote from: sheclown on January 28, 2011, 07:58:16 PM
...and there you have it.
Have what? We all agree, well most, that this guy used the rules in his favor, but how can you prevent it? Do you put a dollar amount on the amount that would be required to sustain the home i.l.o. demolition? Should that $ be added to the sale price of the home or just understood after the fact?
You guys have a situation, while horrible for you, is s.o.p. in most other parts of the world. He's using the rules in his favor.
If you know you're dying from old age, but your life insurance will only pay for death by cancer, then you find enough second opinions until one of them agrees that you're dying because of cancer, no matter that it's just a bit of melanoma on your forearm and you spend 9 hours a day out in the sun - it's still cancer and you're dying - show my family the money.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 28, 2011, 06:43:39 PM
yep, and I totally agree, but the only defense it to a.) pay out of the ass for health insurance or b.) don't have insurance and don't pay the bill.
Yeah, you're right, really seems like the system encourages people to not have insurance.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2011, 08:19:54 PM
Yeah, you're right, really seems like the system encourages people to not have insurance.
The deep, dark side of me contributes all of this to the basis of your kind - the attorney.
Before you and I go completely off thread, I think everything was probably trucking along just fine until someone who knew how to twist the law and had a gift of speech to point out that even though 'x' did what he though was right for 'y', it wasn't right, so 'x' should have to pay 'z' for his service and also 'y' for his disservice.
I haven't drank enough tonight to take this argument on, but you see where I'm going with it.
Sure thing, Stephen, my apologies on that, you're right this doesn't have anything to do with historic preservation.
Quote from: stephendare on January 28, 2011, 08:55:46 PM
Well from the sound of it, youve had more than enough to drink to sound completely bizarre and partisan.
Lets keep this on topic gentlemen.
I typically am pretty bizarre and quite often find myself being partisan, so the alcohol doesn't really contribute to that (see all posts prior to 6 pm on fridays ;D)
But I agree, I was getting off topic.
Quote from: AmyLynne on January 27, 2011, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on January 27, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
That guy is full of crap...
His story makes absolutely no freaking sense from the very first sentence; "When I purchased the property, I did so with the belief that it was in such a poor and unsafe condition that it should be demolished."
He then goes on to say (lie) about having the true intent to rehab the property, when he already acknowledged from the very first sentence that he wanted to knock it when he bought it. He also assiduously avoids disclosing his real motivation behind buying it in the first place, which a search of the tax rolls shows is that he lives in the house directly next door and is increasing the size of his yard.
True. Could he had a change of heart though?? Not likely, but still its possible.
Can he show proof that he did indeed sink as much as he said he did into the rehab before he discovered the fatal "flaws"??
I don't know about you...but if I had sunk so much money into a house, I wouldn't have been so willing to accept the demo without so much as a whimper!!
My 2 cents ( no retail value)
Maybe the case I am about to talk about cannot or does not compare to this particular Springfield home , but I personally can attest to the home I am speaking of ( 4442 Angelo Place , Jacksonville ) A now very beautiful 2 Story Stucco with Clay Tile roof home in Ortega.. in fact this home was listed in MJ's showcase of Ortega Homes , last year.
My Grandparents, Rev.Christian and Mrs. Margaret Eck purchased this home around 1941. He passed on in 1961 and she in 1999, My Mother, and siblings then sold the home in 2000. At that time, the home was not formally condemned, but I can assure you had a building inspector even approached the home there would have been no question.. The home had extensive deterioration structurally...Floor Joists of the first story just riddled with termite damage.. West and South Walls of the house buckling inward and outward on the first story.. In order to clear the house without fear of collapsing ,we installed housejacks....and that was the way the building was sold.
I do not have exact figures of renovation costs of this property, but for all rights and purposes, the home was essentially rebuilt.... very little of what is there today of the inner structure is original ... there is no way it could be because the termite and water damage was so extensive. And no way a "patch job" could have been done on the house.. it was so close to collapsing I have often wondered just how exactly they did accomplish the work without it coming down. Nonetheless.....
My point to this.. where there is a will there is a way. This is a case where a home was bought of the same exact scenario as the Springfield home just demolished.. The Springfield home was NO WHERE CLOSE TO as extensively deteriorated as the Angelo Place property I am speaking of. This man can say what he wants. There may be some truths to his statements, but in my heart, from what I read...the first part of his story is what sticks out in the entire statement.. In the case of Angelo place , that home was truly and honestly falling apart and was in need of a bulldozer. The reason(s) it was saved was because I personally located the individual who bought it from my Mom and her siblings who worked quickly and I know must have put great expense into saving this home. Had it been demolished , given its relatively small lot size, there is no way a home of similar size would have replaced it...not then anyway.
Today it stands ....it is a stunning home, and My Grandmother would be thrilled to know it was spared. She really wanted to see it restored..I regret this was never to be ,in her lifetime, but it was restored .
Thanks Timkin for sharing your story.
This is why the proposed mothball legislation is so important. It takes time for a project to find its owner.
Agree.. And I hope and pray more of these homes see a new chapter, rather than being bulldozed.
I missed this thread during my hiatus.
This demo get's a big OMGWTF!
I doubt the lot is worth what it was with the house on it. I don't generally wish for bad upon people, but a significant financial loss would seem appropriate in this case.
Dood already lost whatever he paid out for the property, "remodeling" labor (+materials), and the demolition itself.
I'm guessing the investment is now in the red, and deservedly so.
Another question: When these demolitions do get approved, then move forward, is there any means for salvagers to recover historic elements such as doors, mantles, cornice, hardware etc.. other than direct permission from the property owner?
I suppose not...
QuoteAnother question: When these demolitions do get approved, then move forward, is there any means for salvagers to recover historic elements such as doors, mantles, cornice, hardware etc.. other than direct permission from the property owner?
I suppose not...
If Burkhalter's is still in business on US 23, I suggest you visit them to see what they reclaim from old properties. Visit them at 2500 Kings Road.
They have a website as well.
QuoteMy point to this.. where there is a will there is a way.
Until SPAR has the same clout in the city that RAP does, if a home is in Springfield, they are considered an endangered species. If this home was in SPAR district, why are there not people rushing to save it, as there would be in RAP's district? What is the perception of homes in SPAR versus RAP?
I'm a dumpster diver... The whole point is to take something headed to the landfill and allow it to retain it's value. A door is a perfect example. Salvage stores would be an option for those unwilling to do the diving themselves (salvaging prior to demo), or to complete a project where you simply didn't have enough to begin with.
QuoteThe whole point is to take something headed to the landfill and allow it to retain it's value. A door is a perfect example.
Sadly we have way too many lawyers, insert lawyer joke here, who would like nothing more that to sue someone for negligence. This is why most of the people you see who do the removal of doors are business people with insurance. Yeah it will cost a bit more from Burkhalters, but they did remove the item with their own risk, own people and own insurance. When you step on a property, if you step on a nail and infect your foot, who protects the property owner for your negligence? That is when you see a letter from Chuck and Eddie (Farah)and you don't want that!
Fair enough... As it happens, I do have ins. I do demolition quite often but in terms of remodeling. I understand the legal implications of allowing joe blow on your property which is about to be demo'd (or not, for that matter).
Most homeowners would be reluctant to allow me to come in with or without ins. "Why bother?" would be the mindset. Hell... they didn't care enough about the structure/landfill issue enough to preserve a sound structure to begin with.
QuoteMost homeowners would be reluctant to allow me to come in with or without ins. "Why bother?" would be the mindset. Hell... they didn't care enough about the structure/landfill issue enough to preserve a sound structure to begin with.
Good for them, I would not let you on my properties without seeing the insurance and checking to make sure it was current or to see if you had any pending litigation in the local courts and I would check your company with the State and Better Business Bureau. But then again, I trust, but verify.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 02, 2011, 09:00:42 AM
QuoteMy point to this.. where there is a will there is a way.
Until SPAR has the same clout in the city that RAP does, if a home is in Springfield, they are considered an endangered species. If this home was in SPAR district, why are there not people rushing to save it, as there would be in RAP's district? What is the perception of homes in SPAR versus RAP?
The reason Springfield, as a neighborhood, is endangered is because SPAR had too much clout.
I disagree a bit Chris. SPAR needed clout. What they lost was their mission, which should have been historic preservation. They got too much into "revitalization." In an historic district, if you preserve the homes and restore them, the revitalization will come along automatically. Once you stop preservation efforts, and instead try to force "revitalization" at the expense of preservation, the neighborhood homes suffer and the revitalization you thought you were chasing doesn't occur, because there are too many vacant lots and neglected homes due to lost focus.
My two cents. Feel free to disagree.
It wasn't so much the loss of direction as much as it was greed. It was also the influx of a group that had an idea of how to market their product and the old houses and most of the existing residents stood in their way.
Many of the individuals attracted by that marketing also felt the existing residents and old houses were an issue. Hey, even I will agree that on occasion, they were at least partially right. But the failure to see Springfield for what it really is has always been the issue and the point that holds us back. Even zoning laws seem more geared towards making this urban area more like the suburbs than what it really is. It is how or why we have lost 25% of the historic houses since the area was made an historic district.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 03, 2011, 06:01:19 PM
I disagree a bit Chris. SPAR needed clout. What they lost was their mission, which should have been historic preservation. They got too much into "revitalization." In an historic district, if you preserve the homes and restore them, the revitalization will come along automatically. Once you stop preservation efforts, and instead try to force "revitalization" at the expense of preservation, the neighborhood homes suffer and the revitalization you thought you were chasing doesn't occur, because there are too many vacant lots and neglected homes due to lost focus.
My two cents. Feel free to disagree.
I do disagree, having been in Springfield since before SPAR's trip down the rabbit hole.
SPAR had plenty of clout, and misused all of it, literally and figuratively destroying the place in the process.