Metro Jacksonville

This house was heard this afternoon at the HPC meeting:

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325Laura.jpg)

Elaine Lancaster along with the new code enforcement officer was there.  Shannon Palmer, next door neighbor,  and her girls were there as well.  

Elaine spoke about the recent sudden deterioration of the house -- roof panels peeling off.  She said she went to the house this morning to check it out.  I went by there about 1/2 hour ago and took some photos and they are below:

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laura002.jpg)

south view of the roof.  No changes from previous photo.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laura004.jpg)

This photo was used as an illustration of how the roof panels are starting to come up.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laura005.jpg)

Shannon Palmer brought in some tin that had blown into her yard.  The testimony that was given was that this was from a roofing panel b/c roofing panels were flapping and falling off.  Closer examination reveals that the metal which is falling off of the roof is old flashing.  The owner removed the chimney and left the hole open.  The good news for the roof is that removing the loose flashing would do nothing to harm the house nor would it be expensive.  Just a ladder and a pair of tin snips.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laura007.jpg)

a close up of the flashing which is falling off.

Shannon said that Tamarra BAker of Baker Klien Engineering looked at the house and said it was structurally unsound but has not written anything up.

Shannon is very frustrated that the house is in such bad shape. She brought in pictures of the house from years ago when it was occupied. These photos are dated and will possibly be used by the OGC to prove "demolition by neglect".

She is very worried about the safety of her family especially her children. She is afraid that metal pieces will hit them when they are playing the yard. She brought a bag of items that she had collected from her front yard including metal pieces with nails.

I spoke next. I agreed that it must be very frustrating for Ms. Palmer not only does she have small children but also her home is so beautiful and they take such care of it. I offered SOS's help in cleaning up and suggested if we could get permission from the owner, perhaps we could paint it or board it. I said that we had access to volunteers and would do whatever we could.

I also pointed out to the HPC commission that according to our ongoing research, perhaps over 500 houses have been demolished since 1985. I pointed out the R/udat study, the vacant lots then, the vacant lots now, and etc. I said that this home is important as it is part of the historic fabric which is vanishing.

I asked for a deferral until the mothballing legislation could pass and would give us another option.

HPC asked me several questions about the mothballing legislation which I answered to the best of my ability and then asked Jason Teal to respond. He spoke that the legislation could be as soon as 90 days or could be much longer. He wants HPC and MCC to have a chance to look it over and then it will need to go to full council.

After public comments, the commissioners spoke among themselves. There is concern about "deadbeat" homeowners who allow this sort of damage to their homes and all agree there is limited amount that the city or the neighborhood groups can do about it.

Commissioner Jennifer Mansfield then began talking about 518 and the fact that MCC CAN do, by ordinance, minor stabilization repairs including fixing roofing problems. She said "I don't understand why the city won't use the ordinance in place of demolition" especially, she added, when the ordinance states that historic properties are to be protected. She said "she resents the fact...and it is NOT necessary."

She put forth a motion that HPC deny the demolition with a less intense remedy of dealing with the property's safety. She advised MCC to secure the roof panels, board and secure the property, and use temporary bracing as needed. MCC has 30 days to respond. If MCC finds that it is economically unfeasible to make these repairs, they are free to go ahead with demolition without having to return to HPC.

It was an interesting meeting. To say the least.

There are two places on the roof where the chimneys used to be.  These areas could be rather easily repaired. 

Place metal panels over the openings with screws.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/metalroofing.jpg)

$26.98 for a 12' section

One could use rolled material to stabilize any other roof issues roof like this:

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/rolledroofing.jpg)

It is $87.81 per roll 36 by 33.5 feet. 

The roof flashing could be cut off.

Rough estimate $200 in materials and 12 to 14 man hours to fix that roof.

I would reboard all of the windows and the doors -- using the guidelines with holes for ventilation and painted white, of course.  It would probably cost $350.00 to board and secure and an additional 16 man hours.

I would stablize the pier issue with temporary dry stack piers (2 X 2 pad with cinderblocks on top).  On both sides of the pier.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/Laura%20Street/Sweetpetesandshop102.jpg)

That would cost around $50. and 4 man hours.

The interior would need to be checked.  We know there are some temporary bracing inside.  That would need to be checked on a reinforced if needed.

It looks, to me, that it would be between $1500 to $2500 to stabilize what is evident from the exterior. It probably costs $10k to demolish it.  There's a lot of wiggle room here -- lots of money to make this place safe.

The sad part is, we know how the city doesn't give a damn about saving anything in a historic district, which is evidenced by LaVilla...which is gone. All but a handful of original, historic structures. This administration seldom seems to do the right thing, and code enforcement is their schoolyard bully.

Does this building have any historic significance other than being in Springfield? This place seems to fall more under the "old" category than the "historic" category. I don't think we do the area any favors by simply saving everything that was built before 1950. Wouldn't it to better to focus energy on saving only the properties that are salvageable? I understand that demolition would be more expensive. But boarding it up is not exactly putting it to good use, and will eventually result in demo. Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts at preservation.

Also, is it for sale? What is the structural condition (apart from the obvious problem with the piers)? It looks like its sagging at its midpoint.

We have lost (roughly) 500 houses in the historic district.  This house is important b/c it is a member of the historic fabric.  The owner has done atrocious things to this house including removing the chimneys, all the trim and the plaster, and leaving the house in this condition for years.

The house has gone through such neglect and yet it remains relatively sound.  The sag is what appears to have been an enclosed porch at one time -- it was most likely a bathroom which had plumbing problems.  The sill is in remarkably good shape.

I believe that there is enough money to stabilize this house and then perhaps even put a thick coat of primer on it which would do much to remove its appearance as a blighted property.  Holding on to it now, will enable a family in the future to buy and restore it.

As a contractor, I have restored homes in this condition.  I am thinking of a job we took over on East 5th Street which was gutted in much the same manner.  Today that house is a total beauty with newly milled trim matching the historic.  While not much of the historic features remain on the inside, this home's footprint is vital to the overall historic fabric of the neighborhood.

This home on Laura is important in the same way.  Had we not been eager to tear down houses in the last several years, perhaps we could have "afforded" to lose this one.  Now, all homes are critically important.

The owner  -  http://bhwebapp.bmcjax.com/fap/default.aspx?id=3695 (http://bhwebapp.bmcjax.com/fap/default.aspx?id=3695)

Quote from: Matt M on February 24, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
The owner  -  http://bhwebapp.bmcjax.com/fap/default.aspx?id=3695

Seriously? Why do they own this?

http://www.youtube.com/v/bVhcB9ucmdg

Quote from: Springfielder on February 24, 2011, 06:34:24 AM
The sad part is, we know how the city doesn't give a damn about saving anything in a historic district, which is evidenced by LaVilla...which is gone. All but a handful of original, historic structures. This administration seldom seems to do the right thing, and code enforcement is their schoolyard bully.

+1 

These pictures are too close. Just what the hell am I looking at? Can someone provied a picture of the structure in full?

certainly

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325Laura.jpg)

The middle house with the columns.

Making owners accountable for letting structures like this one fall into such disrepair (other than code-enforcement racking up money )  would probably do wonders to making such owners do necessary repairs or board-up .  I still fail to understand how a property owner can let their building go like this .  

Sincerely wish I could help with securing buildings such as this one, which should definitely NOT be destroyed.. This house is VERY savable.  If the owner cannot or will not , they should pretty much GIVE the property to someone who would.

This is a haunting reminder of the Tarpon properties that are falling into the same type of demise ,and they as the owners , not made accountable .   Typically, as far as I know, homeowners are REQUIRED to keep their structures in reasonably good repair.   I hope this is not another property that ends up "mysteriously" catching fire.  

As with all of the historic buildings that have been razed over the decades , the ones that are endangered as we speak, there was/ IS no good reason to demolish them.  If we have lost 500 (appx) historic homes to this same type of scenario,  I feel about these just as I do about the ones I have been so closely involved in.  NO MORE... FIND a way to save them....and there is a way.

Stephen made a very good and absolutely factual point.. the materials of these structures are such that is no longer commonly used in modern construction, which is why they have lasted , despite neglect.  Save them !  We have lost way too much of our history already.

There is "demolition by neglect" on the books where the city can go after owners who neglect their properties; however, the ordinance doesn't really have any teeth.

I was not sure of the consequences of "Demolition by Neglect"  but was fairly sure that whatever it was/ is , is not enough...  As evidenced by many of these structures that are the subject of discussion and  One building ,in particular I have watched crumble throughout my life and wondered why there was no accountability for that being allowed to happen... :(

Anyone know what other cities do?

I was told by HPC that in one case of demolition by neglect the owner was forced to rebuild the house. The minimum fine is $10k.
It may not have teeth, but it has been done.
Should be done more.

That would be a start.... Imagine(assuming that case of DBN forced the owner to rebuild the house in that case)  what it would cost the owners of , say PS #4 to put it back to at least the state it was in at the time of acquisition.  

No argument....vandals took their toll on that building.. but basic Building Maintenance / Neglect is why there is no longer an Auditorium roof on the building...and why there are holes in various other places in the roof and soft spots, where , potentially one could actually fall through the roof.  If that roof had been replaced when the School Board reports indicated it needed it.. 1960s-1970s  It would be a FRACTION of the cost to do it now..  School 4 is the poster child of "demolition by neglect"  .. No one could convince me that the foundation that bought it , at the time had no means, or could not come up with resources to at least make the building shed water.. and the ensuing damage done to the interior from water damage is a direct result of that negligence..  All ancient history now... It has another owner , now even not willing to secure the building , as evidenced by the city now having to hire a private company to do that.....when it gets done, which is not often from what I have observed.  

There needs to be much stricter enforcements to property owners, so that we do not have these multitudes of buildings, now awaiting an uncertain fate and City Management/ Code enforcement , apparently chomping at the bit, so to speak , to demolish them.  It is not right, it is not fair and it should be extinguished to continue these guidelines for these historic properties.

With that said, PS #4 is not relevant to this particular building, but the similarities are too much alike to ignore.

Quote from: Timkin on February 24, 2011, 07:10:20 PM
Stephen made a very good and absolutely factual point.. the materials of these structures are such that is no longer commonly used in modern construction, which is why they have lasted , despite neglect.  Save them !  We have lost way too much of our history already.

If you're referring to SYP support members, you would be wrong.   

The 'guts' of today's homes are just as strong if not stronger as the homes built yesteryear.  There is one defining difference - the on-grade slab. 

QuoteSlab-on-grade foundations are commonly used in areas with expansive clay soil, particularly in California and Texas. While elevated structural slabs actually perform better on expansive clays, it is generally accepted by the engineering community that slab-on-grade foundations offer the greatest cost-to-performance ratio for tract homes. Elevated structural slabs are generally only found on custom homes or homes with basements.

The fact that people tend to overlook is that the homes in Springfield, Riverside, Murray Hill, Durkeeville were all tract homes.  They were all 'planned' subdivisions.  Crews would go from one house to the other to the other, just like it is today.  The difference is the foundations. 

A slab foundation has no give.  When it moves, it cracks.  Wood stays alive.  The beams in a 120 yr old home are still 'alive.'  They flex and warp and twist and bow and swell and shrink as they de & re-humidify year after year, season after season.  A concrete slab - shears.  There is no give.  Give me a pier and beam structure anyday.

The size and the srength of the wooden timbers used cannot be matched today.  There was a time when a 2 X 4 was actually 2 X 4.

Quote from: sheclown on February 24, 2011, 07:27:56 PM
There is "demolition by neglect" on the books where the city can go after owners who neglect their properties; however, the ordinance doesn't really have any teeth.

The law only applies to struggling families, not those who actually have the means to fix up their structures. They only go after the little guy when they have a problem with private property.

If the city (or whatever government entity) demolishes a building, do they then own the land?

No.
The land (not the owner,) then has a demolition lien tied to it. 

Quote from: iloveionia on February 25, 2011, 12:56:35 PM
No.
The land (not the owner,) then has a demolition lien tied to it. 

And the owner of the land with the destructed structure still owns the land?
I would think if you don't maintain your building such that it needs to be demolished, you should lose your right to that land.

Yes. The owner with the destructed structure still owns the land.
The title incidently has a lien on it from the city.

The city is extremely reclutant to seize private property.

Coming soon to Laura st, Surface parking!!!

We already have surface parking over on Ionia, and we keep gaining. 
Add that to our own public speedway and Hoo Rah. 

We found out yesterday that the owner of this property has requested demolition.

As a historic neighborhood, we need to come out very strongly against owner requested demolitions. We can point to the mothballing legislation which gives homeowners a viable alternative.

Buyer beware. If you buy a historic home, you accept the responsibility for it.

If you cannot afford to restore the house, you can protect it enough so that someone else can.

You could not buy Mount Vernon and then decide to tear it down.

Quote from: sheclown on March 10, 2011, 08:56:12 AM
We found out yesterday that the owner of this property has requested demolition.

As a historic neighborhood, we need to come out very strongly against owner requested demolitions. We can point to the mothballing legislation which gives homeowners a viable alternative.

Buyer beware. If you buy a historic home, you accept the responsibility for it.

If you cannot afford to restore the house, you can protect it enough so that someone else can.

You could not buy Mount Vernon and then decide to tear it down.

Girl...you so fabulous...keep fighting for our neighborhoods

<shucks>

Interestingly enough, the owner in this case is in a pickle.  When he bought the place, it was in fairly good condition (on record by the next door neighbor, HPC minutes Feb 2011).  Fast forward a couple of years and he has removed the chimneys leaving gaping holes in the roof (which the poor house is still surviving through), but if he now cries out that it is too far gone to save (no doubt with a contractor's statement to back it up or a structural engineers report), HE IS THE ONE WHO HAS CAUSED THE DAMAGE TO THE HOUSE.

The HPC ruled on this last month and denied the demolition request by code enforcement asking code to come up with a better plan.  I doubt they will allow the owner to tear it down, now.

It has to stop where the owner messes up the property and then claims it's too far gone.

What has to STOP is an owner NEGLECTING A PROPERTY, Commercial and/or Residential , and then requesting to demolish it ,citing it cost-prohibitive to save.  This is beyond absurd. 

If there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be.  Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied.  I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition.  This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that  and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

Quote from: Timkin on March 10, 2011, 02:08:24 PM
What has to STOP is an owner NEGLECTING A PROPERTY, Commercial and/or Residential , and then requesting to demolish it ,citing it cost-prohibitive to save.  This is beyond absurd. 

If there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be.  Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied.  I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition.  This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that  and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

I say it a lot but, Thos are Floridiots for you.

HPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less).  You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

QuoteIf there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be.  Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied.  I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition.  This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that  and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

Agreed.  In a designated historic district, this city needs to have concrete laws against demo by neglect.  Would be a great topic to bring up in front of council candidates at the Hyatt tonight....

AND ....on any designated Historic Landmark.  you all know where I am going with that :)

QuoteHPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less).  You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

Why didn't RAP step up to stop the demolition to the house on Orleans Court last year?

Quote from: fieldafm on March 10, 2011, 02:19:04 PM
HPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less).  You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

QuoteIf there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be.  Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied.  I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition.  This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that  and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

Agreed.  In a designated historic district, this city needs to have concrete laws against demo by neglect.  Would be a great topic to bring up in front of council candidates at the Hyatt tonight....

Someone bring it up!  I'll be hosting out of town guests and unable to attend.

Quote from: cline on March 10, 2011, 02:24:08 PM

QuoteHPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less).  You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

Why didn't RAP step up to stop the demolition to the house on Orleans Court last year?

I'm not RAP, you'll have to ask the powers that be.

I am unable to attend the next HPC meeting, but I think I have a pdf of the Greenwood presentation at home.

Not looking too good for this little old house.  I believe she just failed Joel's matrix.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325Laura-1-1.jpg)

We need to convince the powers that be to revamp the matrix.  With a mothballing option we ought to be able to eliminate the "economic hardship" argument to demolition.

Now would be a great time to email the HPC commissioners and let them know how important this house is to the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

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

How is it again a historic home can be demolished? I have absolutely zero tolerance for this cowardace. Okay, fine, some owners are not responsible. That's where the city should step in. We (SOS) do what we can to speak for the houses. Our voice and passion has worked for some homes, but the system is flawed. 

Mrs Buckethead and I are SERIOUSLY considering a move into Springfield.

Something about rejoining the human race.

I have my eye on a couple nice little rehabs, and this one is certainly a fairly major undertaking. That said, we did see this little jewel, and it is in a prime location.

Gruntwork? It's what I do! Now how to get my hands on a property the owner seems unwilling to sell or maintain?

Is he looking to keep the lot for posterity? This should not be a consideration in a historic district.

Ionia,  I could not concur with you more... I have never seen a City who's past and present management has such little regard for Historic Structures , PERIOD.. this is evidenced by a lost count of beautiful examples , that were in far better shape, than the house that is the topic of this thread. Structurally this home is no where close to as deteriorated as the home my Grandparents once owned, in Ortega.  And that home luckily was saved because I happened by total accident to locate a buyer for it , who happened to be in favor of saving it.  They went to tremendous expense and great lengths to save that home...  It is a shame , truly a crying shame that the remaining historic properties are not treated with more regard than they are.  Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion, that try as we may, we will not save all of them.  I wish economics, potential buyers, and the mindset to save these places , were different than they are.  The SOS organization is wonderful..I certainly wish there were more alike-minded folks like them in the various historic districts, and IMO not another Historic home or Building of any kind in any reasonably savable shape (and this home definitely is savable) should be allowed to be destroyed.

I still contend that restoring an historic house such as this is still less costley than building a new house.

As Sheclown stated, a few grand puts the structure in place to be finished. To build new (and cheap) look to prices of $15-$20 per sq ft to bring the structure to a similar point. (foundation, framing, siding, roofing)

The other benefit is the "sweat equity" an individual can build. The owner is apparently a doctor, likely with little time of inclination to put in the elbow grease.

It appears the good doctor paid $225,000.00 for the property in 2003 according to the duval county property appraiser. (the sticking point) http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0708770000

The losses have occurred. Perhaps he sees no point in throwing good money after bad.

What is the value of the lot post demolition?  12K-25K?

What would you estimate the property worth in a restored status ? Just curious. 

Based on the purchase figure, I see why (to an extent) he would not put anymore money into it..  That said, putting the money into stabilizing the structure and marketing it, would be better than putting the same money  into it to demolish it, and still end up with a lot with a value of $12-25k. 

I would think restoring any existing structure that is in reasonably savable shape would be less expensive than going from a new build (for a building that is an EXACT duplicate of the existing)  Am I correct, or is there not an impact fee once a building is destroyed, to put another building in its place?

I'm seeing similarly sized homes in move in condition for under $150K. The current market does not allow the investor in a similar position to be made whole, let alone make a profit.

It is a perfect time to buy an old home in need of love and care. That property, as is, might fetch 25K, if there are no strings attached such as back taxes. I haven't researched empty lot prices in the Devil's Triangle, so I might be off the mark. Over on the east side of main, lots are priced to move. (I want a house, not a lot)

The area is secure. The neighbors are largely friendly and nurturing of their properties. The speculators have made the neighborhood look worse of than it actually is due to abandonment and neglect. Those who bought in and moved in seem to be in for the long haul.

Buckethead.  What are you and the Mrs waiting for?  Just do it.  This is an absolute great time to buy in Springfield. 

As for 1325 Laura Street.  The Doctor purchased 5 "Madge" homes way back when for that $225,000 lump sum.  He gutted completely (though not necessary) the large yellow house on the corner and renovated it.  It's nice, though nothing original, and currently listed at over 1/2 a million.  No lie. 

Recent vacant lot sales have fetched as low as $8k.  This home does not sit on a large lot, and I do not believe there is a driveway.  Fair to say max $12 - $15k for a vacant lot this size.

Our problem is a structural engineer can come out and write a report (after inspection of course,) and say that the house is unstable.  That it is a "danger."  That it is "structurally unsound."  The owner wants this house torn down, this evident by his complete disregard for his responsibility for the homes he's purchased.  I've tried to contact him to no avail.  There is a neighbor who also wants the house torn down.  MCCD is only concerned for safety, not history.  HPC doesn't seem to have teeth, and certainly when it comes to safety and "eminent danger," the house it out of their hands.  HPC can persue "Demolition by Neglect" which guarantees a minimum $10k fine or possibly rebuilding the home.  But the lien attaches to the house, not the owner.  Quite simply there is no consequence for the owner, just the house, and in my opinion, the neighborhood. 

How can someone, anyone, buy in a Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood and champion demolition.  It is beyond my scope of understanding.

And as for the house falling down on someone or something or itself? Let us remember Chicken Little.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

And unfortunately the structural engineer prevails, unless of course someone comes to its rescue.  I am hopeful.  It would be obvious the owner is not ,for whatever reason, interested in saving it. It would seem to me, they would readily unload it to some prospect, to not have to pay to demolish it. 

Quote from: iloveionia on March 17, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
Buckethead.  What are you and the Mrs waiting for?  Just do it.  This is an absolute great time to buy in Springfield. 

As for 1325 Laura Street.  The Doctor purchased 5 "Madge" homes way back when for that $225,000 lump sum.  He gutted completely (though not necessary) the large yellow house on the corner and renovated it.  It's nice, though nothing original, and currently listed at over 1/2 a million.  No lie. 

Recent vacant lot sales have fetched as low as $8k.  This home does not sit on a large lot, and I do not believe there is a driveway.  Fair to say max $12 - $15k for a vacant lot this size.

Our problem is a structural engineer can come out and write a report (after inspection of course,) and say that the house is unstable.  That it is a "danger."  That it is "structurally unsound."  The owner wants this house torn down, this evident by his complete disregard for his responsibility for the homes he's purchased.  I've tried to contact him to no avail.  There is a neighbor who also wants the house torn down.  MCCD is only concerned for safety, not history.  HPC doesn't seem to have teeth, and certainly when it comes to safety and "eminent danger," the house it out of their hands.  HPC can persue "Demolition by Neglect" which guarantees a minimum $10k fine or possibly rebuilding the home.  But the lien attaches to the house, not the owner.  Quite simply there is no consequence for the owner, just the house, and in my opinion, the neighborhood. 

How can someone, anyone, buy in a Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood and champion demolition.  It is beyond my scope of understanding.

And as for the house falling down on someone or something or itself? Let us remember Chicken Little.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

I saw the renovations on the yellow house. Looks okay, but way overpriced in today's market. I believe I saw it online for an asking price in the high sixes and again in the high threes. Either is out of my current range.

I don't want someone elses version of awesome. the kitchen is nice but not ideal. The fireplace looks inappropriate with the new tile/marble/travertine surround. The trim on the front door looks like home depot dropped it off. Not horrible, but not authentic.

If he's willing to part with the property for a fair market value, I would consider it. It does need all new windows and those are costly due to historic restrictions for window sizes.

I'm thinking lot value plus maybe two grand would induce a buyer.

It's got to be better from his perspective than 10K fines.

It would also be better than him paying to tear it down. That cannot possibly be that cheap.

He doesn't care and the city won't intervene to save the house. This would be a great house to mothball, but the way I understand it the owner has to agree. Any rolling fines would stop, but it couldn't be mothballed forever (at least according to the current draft.)

It could be mothballed for 5 years & after that the mothballing would continue if he showed some work being done.

Using economic hardship to justify a demoltion, in this case particularly, is highly ironic given the fact that the owner is the one who caused the problems in the first place.  Especially when he removed the chimneys and left holes in the roof.  That being said, the structural issues have more to do with past termite damage than anything else.  And ALL houses in Springfield have termite damage to some extent. 

IMHO, you don't get to justify a request for demolition based upon the fact that renovation makes no economic sense WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAUSED THE DETERIORATION IN THE FIRST FREAKIN PLACE. 

The figure we have received (and this is an approximation) from the city is that over 400 homes have been demolished since Springfield was declared a Nationally Registered Historic District 25 years ago.  Our figures, based on vacant lots then, vacant lots now, and infill, put the figure at 500 +. 

Using the lower figure, it is a loss of approximately 1.5 a month, every month, for 25 years. 

Now, houses need to be examined as much for their contribution to the historic fabric that remains as their individual importance.  To say that a house has lost (in this case through the owner's mistreatment) most of its interior historic detail, is irrelevant.  We have lost the "luxury" of removing houses which have been stripped. 

The remaining homes are important not only in and of themselves, but at this point, because they connect with all of the other historic houses around them.  They are an important part of the ever shrinking whole.

These arguments don't work anymore:

1.) it is too expensive to restore -- we can mothball for a better time.

2.) it has lost too much of its historic elements -- it is an important part of Springfield's footprint.

Green talk is cheap, COJ.  Want to be green?  Recycle a house.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/116%20E%206th%20St/111East6th002-1-1.jpg)
(116 E. 6th Street as being demo'd 2010)


The greenest house is one not in a landfill.

Is ths 1325 Laura today?  That was a fast demo.  :-(

I had thought that all fast track demo's were on hold for further revue or did I miss something? Someone help me out here..............please!

This is NOT 1325 Laura.  At least not at this moment.

Quote from: CS Foltz on March 18, 2011, 01:40:26 PM
I had thought that all fast track demo's were on hold for further revue or did I miss something? Someone help me out here..............please!

me too.

Commissioner Mansfield speaks out at the last HPC meeting:

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutes001-1.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutes002.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutes003.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutespart2001.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutespart2002.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutespart2003.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/febHPCminutespart2004.jpg)

..and then this from the historic planning staff?

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval001.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval002.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval003.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval004.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval005.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval006.jpg)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval007.jpg)

It's about time!!! The Historic Preservation Commission should have ALWAYS been speaking up for preservation!!!!! Jennifer made it clear that in 30 days they wanted 3 contractor estimates to secure the home. Joel's report jumps the gun, why would he do that? This weeks meeting should produce those estimates where by the commission could then make a recommendation. I still don't have an understanding why this property even came to the table. There is a verbal agreement between planning and code that while the mothball legislation is being written and going through it's process that no houses come forward. Clearly this has not been abided by.

While I empathize with the neighbors, there is an inbetween option (the one between "restore or demolish") and it is mothballing, and it is more than just boarding a home, it means making it safe and reasonable to look at. MCCD CAN do this, and they have in the past. There is obviously money to demolish, then there is money to secure.

Brenda did not speak up publically at HPC meeting. She told me in writing "I will be opposing the demolition." She may very well have submitted a SPAR stance in writing, but I feel strongly that SPAR, as the neighborhood organization for "preservation and revitalization," that Brenda should have spoken during the public comments at the HPC meeting last month.

Lastly, I think it is ridiculous that the owner states that if he is allowed to demolish this house that he will restore the other 2. That is BS. I am told he said the same when 1321 was demolished, that he would restore the other 3. Again, don't even know why the word DEMOLITION comes up in a NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.

QuoteLastly, I think it is ridiculous that the owner states that if he is allowed to demolish this house that he will restore the other 2.

That doesn't seem like a wise way to endear one's self to a Historic Preservation Commission.

It almost sounds like blackmail. I'm sure the owner said it in a nicer way, but effectively it sounds like he is determined to have nothing to do with the house.

Reading the minutes of the meeting, it seems there was some fire damage to the structure, but it isn't clear to what extent.

I took the opportunity to have a gander at the property and it really is a huge task to bring that house back to life. There are some lovely timbers in the roof framing, which is not the norm in Florida, even in antique buildings.

My guess is the floor joists are similar. 3x8 heart pine timbers, IMO, make this structure worthy of saving.

I would consider using rigid insulation over the roof deck and leaving the rafters and ceiling joists exposed.

It would look awesome.

Thanks Bucket.
Read the text at the top of page 4 from Joel's report. The owner expresses his intent.

Perhaps it is time for those of us who care about these houses to realize something.  Nothing has changed.  We thought we had started a change of policy, but it is becoming apparent that we were just told the policy was changing.

For years, we have been fed this rhetoric that the local leaders were for preservation.  We believed them. While an average of 1.5 historic houses were take each and every month.  A few of us outted the leadership for what was truly going on, their speaking of being for preservation  in public and supporting ,if not helping, demolition in private. 

Louise DeSpain single handedly did as much harm to this Historic District through her tenure at SPAR Council as any city official from any of the city departments.  Or even our council person.  She gave creditability to the notion that the people of Historic Springfield do not care about the historic houses, which is exactly what the City wants to hear. 

The current leadership within Springfield, meaning SPAR Council and it’s supporters, who are obviously still recognized by most city officials, including MCCE and the Dr. Gaffney,  as being the leadership of Historic Springfield, obviously agrees with the past ideals and so the demolitions continue and will continue.

The city will listen to whomever is speaking what they want to hear.  The city, meaning MCCE and others do not want to be bothered with the effort it takes to preserve this community so  if SPAR Council is the one speaking against preservation in those private meetings, that is who the city will  listen to.

The city is ultimately at fault here.  400 to 500 houses lost since 1985, the year we became a historic district.  I am ashamed of that fact.  The city should be.  I fear it is not.  The city is not into historic districts for the preservation of the houses but rather whatever funding they can get from having historic districts.  The only way to get the city to do the right thing here will be hitting the city  the only way it matters to the  city officials, the budget.

We need to do several things to be successful in our fight to save what houses are left.  We need to stop SPAR Council in it’s tracks.  No more demolitions for social reasons period, regardless of who owns what or who lives where.  We need to recognize that the only language the city will ultimately understand is the language of money.  We need to  hit them there, and do it now.  We should have done it over the Macris demolition, but we bought into the being nice thing and now we have a bigger problem. 

When we lose a small battle like the Macris house, it makes it ten times harder to win the next one.  The laws are on the books that state in part that the city is responsible for preserving the houses within the historic district.  They have avoided this edict as much as possible for years.  It may take the courts to  show them the way back.

I am a 24 years old homeowner (a condo, in fact) in Southside area. I always wanted to buy a house in Springfield and restore to its former glory. Since the recession has hit, the value of my condo has plummeted about 65% of its original value.

For you as the amazing Springfield homeowners, do you think it is a feasible time to buy a house in Springfield and then restore using renovation loans, and/or investment funds to restore a house there? The way Springfield is going, it is going to be the next Avondale or Riverside in my opinion, therefore I want to be part of that.

-Josh

Certainly.

Let's just hope there are homes left there for you to restore.

Quote from: sheclown on March 20, 2011, 08:23:53 AM
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/1325Laurademolitionapproval001.jpg)

Am I reading this right? The Historic Planning Staff recommends demolishing the building?

My wife and I are starting to feel like we dodged a bullet by buying in an older St Nicholas neighborhood instead of Springfield. Our 60 year old home isn't exactly "historic" but we don't have to worry about the guy next door tearing his house down.....

Quote from: sheclown on March 21, 2011, 09:38:01 AM
Certainly.

Let's just hope there are homes left there for you to restore.

I hope so! If Audrey wins, I will have to come visit her office personally, and have a meeting with her or one of her staff in expressing this issue, or there might be a better person who can represent all of us who are Springfield-supporter.

-Josh

Suit should be brought for preserving ALL Historic Buildings in whatever area.

Future news headline:
LOST Jacksonville.
"The entire county of Jax is wiped out by non-preservation minded city officials and offices."

I'm sorry.  I don't consider myself to be a stupid person, but I don't understand.

1)  We were told there is a moratorium on ALL demolitions in the historic districts, unless it was a public emergency.  Clearly, this one isn't.  It even says so in the demo COA.  This house is not in danger of falling down.  Which brings me to point...

2)  If the house isn't in danger of falling down, why was the demo approved?  Which brings me to point...

3)  Last month, HPC denied the demo, passed a motion to require the minimum be performed on the building to make it safe under 518, and to bring three bids on the work for a finding of economically unfeasible.

So, with HPC still not even having met again yet, why is this COA approved already?

More importantly, in a National Register Historic District:

Why isn't our city using the laws already on the books, and which it has at its current disposal, to stabilize these houses and charge the owner?  

Why can’t we require owners to sell the houses if they can’t afford to fix them?  Why are they allowed to leave them open to the elements as this owner and so many others have done?

I suspect this has more to do with a frustrated neighbor beating a bees nest, then anything else.

Quote from: iloveionia on March 21, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Future news headline:
LOST Jacksonville.
"The entire county of Jax is wiped out by non-preservation minded city officials and offices."

"..in other news, the First Coast Outer Beltway has finally been completed. With enough cheap cookie cutter crap & strip malls along it to shake a stick at. Byaaah!!"

Demosthenes, you are doubtless correct. However, why should a frustrated neighbor be permitted to do this?  It's happening too often in Springfield.  People who bought their homes, fully aware there were unrehabilitated homes nearby, are now being allowed to complain about them now until they are brought down.  When you buy in a National Trust historic district, you have an obligation to historic preservation.  If you don't want that obligation, don't buy there.  Buy somewhere else. Simple as that.

Seems like its a double-standard..  Presumably you can buy a historic home in a Recognized Historic Neighborhood,  Do nothing with it.. go in yourself and make it structurally unsound, then have it demolished by neglect.


Only in Jacksonville.  :(   This is Bull $h!+ !

Yup, that about sums it up, Timkin.  That's exactly what you can do.

just a quick FYI: 1325 Laura was deferred at Wednesday's HPC meeting. Both Preservation SOS as well as SPAR spoke against the demolition. A representative (son?) of the owner spoke briefly indicating that the house was in his opinion dangerous to enter and he may need more time to find an engineer to agree with that finding of his.

If I understood correctly, the deferral is in part due to trying to figure out how upcoming legislation like mothballing will affect this house.

It is not over yet and there is a chance that the house will survive a bit longer.

Here is a conspiracy theory...

Why UF/Shands is right next to Springfield?
Is UF/Shands HUNGRY for expansion?
Sudden and swift moves from the officials to bulldoze all the houses down to scare the remaining tenants and house owners out of Springfield to capitalize on the opportunity to seize the lands for the expansion?

I think this is something bigger than Springfield, and it is an unfortunate victim of it.

A waging war between the Springfield supporters and destroyers.

What they say... GOD SAVE THE SPRINGFIELD (in homage to God Save The Queen) Only time will tell!

-Josh

That is an interesting theory.

Here is what really kills me- people complain and complain about that vacant house thinking once it is down everything will be soooo much better! Little do they know it just becomes a whole new issue. I am surrounded by vacant lots that the upkeep of are killing me, none of the owners will sell, and if I dont keep them up they ecome a jungle. Now I have to deal with kids and adults cutting through the lots, looking in my backyard and taunting my dogs. SOOOO not cool, When the houses were there it was not an issue. If you want oh so pretty perfection move to a gated community

Code Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY. Let those lots get nasty, keep your lawnmower in your garage and make the city do its job.

If it is Historic , in Jacksonville, it is endangered. I don't care where it is located.

Timkin, you are correct. What bothers me to no end is the reason why. I mean if historic buildings were being knocked down and replaced with something, then we could at least see someone wanted the land. But what we see over and over and over is the historic buildings being leveled to be replaced with.........a vacant lot. 

QuoteCode Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY.

Be careful, the moment you submit a complaint, you have to submit your own name and address. You become a bullseye for your adversary.

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 26, 2011, 10:09:48 AM

QuoteCode Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY.

Be careful, the moment you submit a complaint, you have to submit your own name and address. You become a bullseye for your adversary.

Not so....
They might ask but you do not have to give any personal info at all. We are all too well aware of potential backlash but the system must take your complaint, issue a tracking number and forward the complaint to the proper city department, which, in this case, would be code compliance. If you are worried that caller ID may display your number, use per-call blocking by dialing *67 before you make the call.

Quote from: uptowngirl on March 26, 2011, 07:51:36 AM
Timkin, you are correct. What bothers me to no end is the reason why. I mean if historic buildings were being knocked down and replaced with something, then we could at least see someone wanted the land. But what we see over and over and over is the historic buildings being leveled to be replaced with.........a vacant lot. 

This is one time, I do not want to be correct .   Clearly we have plenty of "surface parking " :)

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 26, 2011, 10:09:48 AM

QuoteCode Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY.

Be careful, the moment you submit a complaint, you have to submit your own name and address. You become a bullseye for your adversary.

Actually, the best thing to do is to just mow the vacant lot yourself.  What does it take?  10 minutes? 

Then... it is done. 

If folks on your street see you mowing a lot that doesn't belong to you, they will begin picking up trash that they didn't drop.  Next thing you know, the lady next door will be planting flowers on the CROW, and this blight will be gone.

funny...a few neighbors were chatting yesterday, after we finished cleaning up, raking, trimming overgrown brush, etc., and the majority of this did not take place on our own property. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need code enforcement, or worry about whether the city will do it's job and mow, but we don't...so there are many of us who would rather take the time to mow, to clip back overgrown brush and pick up trash, instead of waiting for the city or someone else to step up to the plate.

To me, it's the right thing to do...pay it forward...and perhaps something that sees you doing work like that, will think twice when tossing that trash onto the sidewalk, or will take those few extra steps with the mower and make that lot next to them, more presentable. In the end, what you end up with, is a prettier, cleaner neighborhood, and self pride that you did the right thing

+1

We lose.
1325 Laura is on the 4/27/11 agenda for the HPC meeting for demolition and it is being approved by HPC (or at least recommended for approval.)
Kick us while we are down, huh?

We asked for a deferral until the mothballing legislation could be passed.  

What is the rush to tear it down?  

HPC meeting 4/27.  Come testify to save this house if you can.  If you can't come, email the HPC commissioners.

Debbie, can you post the names and addresses of the HPC?

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 26, 2011, 10:09:48 AM

QuoteCode Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY.

Be careful, the moment you submit a complaint, you have to submit your own name and address. You become a bullseye for your adversary.

That's exactly it, southern vengeance, When I call JTA to complain, they always ask for my full name and address. I tell them "NO" I will not let you guys retaliate against me. Just handle the problem. You do not need my personal info to solve it!

Hoo Rah!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAhKf_Ro4ZU

It ain't over 'till its over.

The folks of Springfield held them at bay and it is deferred another month.

These folks spoke up against demoltion:  Karla, Pat, Brenda, Chris, Crispy, Debbie, Kim, Hailing, and me.

The staff had a fist full of emails. 

HOLD THAT LINE

Quote from: mtraininjax on March 26, 2011, 10:09:48 AM

QuoteCode Compliance has the duty to cite these vacant overgrown properties, although they may need a little help from a call to 630-CITY.

Be careful, the moment you submit a complaint, you have to submit your own name and address. You become a bullseye for your adversary.

Fake name and address.  Whenever I put a complaint in on the CARE system I use a fake name and then use the address of a vacant city owned parcel that abuts our neighborhood as the address.

Quote from: sheclown on April 27, 2011, 08:15:53 PM
Hoo Rah!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAhKf_Ro4ZU

It ain't over 'till its over.

The folks of Springfield held them at bay and it is deferred another month.

These folks spoke up against demoltion:  Karla, Pat, Brenda, Chris, Crispy, Debbie, Kim, Hailing, and me.

The staff had a fist full of emails. 

HOLD THAT LINE

Oh my gosh! That's awesome!!!

-Josh

There was a STRONG and large showing of neighborhood preservationists.  The commission stood their ground and demanded the owner show next time and provde due diligence in their requests.

Hoo Rah.

The JHPC meeting is 5/25/11 and as promised, 1325 is up again for demolition and on the agenda.
The commission requested the owner of the property show up and speak himself.

If you can't attend the meeting you can show your support of demoliton PREVENTION by emailing the JHPC commissioners, or the HPC staff.

Please email.  Don't hold your comment planning to comment at the next meeting, as you may not be allowed to speak.    Please try and attend to show support, and wear your Springfield or RAP t-shirts. :-) 

But please email anyway.  As I recall, there is no public comment planned at the 5/25 meeting.  There was a strong showing at the last one.  It was recommended that the public comment portion be closed, and HPC asked the owner's attorney to have the owner come speak for himself.

gaffney@coj.net
dcase@rs-architects.com
mansfield@comcast.net
joe_thompson@gspnet.com
johnallmand@gmail.com
sheppard@coj.net
amartina@coj.net
mceachin@coj.net

Preservation SOSs email sent today in opposition of the proposed demolition:

Preservation SOS vehemently opposes the demolition of 1325 Laura Street.

1.  This owner purchased 5 properties in a jumbo deal in February of 2003 for a total of $225,000.  In 2003, all 5 properties were habitable and lived in.

2.  Since 2003 only 1 of the homes has been rehabbed and is currently listed on the MLS for over $600,000.  Completely asinine.  The 1 home that was rehabbed was completely gutted and little, if no architectural details remain on the inside (staircase and one mantel.)

3.  The other remaining 3 homes have all been gutted as well (by Dr. Florete) and left to deteriorate.

4.  Since 2003, 1 of the homes has been demolished.  Dr. Florete made the same promise then he is trying to make now:  "Let me demolish this one, then I can restore the others." 

5.  Dr. Florete has the financial means to rehab the properties he purchased, and any "damage" to 1325 Laura Street, he knowingly committed and created himself.

Please.  You can not allow the demolition of this property to occur.  It is not fair to our historic neighborhood to continually demolish.  I am still astounded that demolition is even discussed and practiced in Springfield's Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood.  Dr. Florete's complete disregard for the neighbors of Laura Street and the community of Springfield is completely unacceptable.

Just sent this off to the powers that be:

It seems that the criteria for demolition by neglect has been met by this owner.  He has allowed this property to deteriorate to a point he feels he can justify tearing it down.  This practice must be stopped.  And the penalty for such actions must be severe enough to prevent it becoming even more common.

In real estate I see a lot of people who have unrealistic plans and ideas that they go into half-cocked and the results are disastrous.  In this case the owner’s “vision” is to basically duplicate what he saw done by other builders during the boom years â€" put up new construction at high profit margins and sit back and collect.

However, we are not in the boom years.  The seller has demonstrated no time line for his vision, no business plan, no pricing structure, no feasibility study that would make this a doable idea.  Instead he wants the city to help him in his march toward his “vision” without backing it up with facts and plans.

Allowing him to get away with this sets a very dangerous precedent that can only mean more owners will try and succeed at this same plan. 

To “side” with the seller would be to allow bad behavior and irresponsible actions to rule.  Not only should this demolition request be denied, the seller needs to be penalized so that he is not allowed to do this again.

And when this comes before the next HPC meeting, the public deserves to be heard in response to anything the seller or his minions try to pull.

Thanks!

Quote from: Springfield Chicken on May 19, 2011, 09:09:47 AM
Just sent this off to the powers that be:

It seems that the criteria for demolition by neglect has been met by this owner.  He has allowed this property to deteriorate to a point he feels he can justify tearing it down.  This practice must be stopped.  And the penalty for such actions must be severe enough to prevent it becoming even more common.

In real estate I see a lot of people who have unrealistic plans and ideas that they go into half-cocked and the results are disastrous.  In this case the owner’s “vision” is to basically duplicate what he saw done by other builders during the boom years â€" put up new construction at high profit margins and sit back and collect.

However, we are not in the boom years.  The seller has demonstrated no time line for his vision, no business plan, no pricing structure, no feasibility study that would make this a doable idea.  Instead he wants the city to help him in his march toward his “vision” without backing it up with facts and plans.

Allowing him to get away with this sets a very dangerous precedent that can only mean more owners will try and succeed at this same plan. 

To “side” with the seller would be to allow bad behavior and irresponsible actions to rule.  Not only should this demolition request be denied, the seller needs to be penalized so that he is not allowed to do this again.

And when this comes before the next HPC meeting, the public deserves to be heard in response to anything the seller or his minions try to pull.

Thanks!

Let us know what their reply is, if they even do reply.

The powers that be won't reply.  However these emails are copied and are part of the file for 1325 Lauara in HPC and are part of the "evidence" in the hearings.

Their "reply" is in how they respond at next week's HPC meeting. 

Last meeting, a strong community showing, support for it's preservation, and continued letters caused HPC to make demands of the property owner and defer the request for demolition.

This go around, we would like the request for demolition to be denied.

Sunshine laws don't allow them to reply but I do know they get read and considered.  And it matters to them that they have the support of the community when they are willing to go to the mattresses on something like this where you have an owner's attorney making veiled threats.

As many of you know, 1325 Laura is up for another demolition hearing this Wednesday at the HPC meeting.  This will be the 4th time it has been heard in as many months.

Last month we were offered an opportunity to view the inside of the structure by the general contractor who was acting as the owner's agent for the purposes of this meeting.  I have emailed and called and have not been given permission, as of yet, to enter the property.

Joel and Tom Goldsbury both have been inside this house and have concluded that it is not in imminent danger of collapsing as the doctor would like us to believe.

The commissioners seem, at this point, to be leaning toward denying the demolition request; however, they want to hear from the doctor, personally. 

I have no idea if he will show or what they will agree to do after he speaks.  I have no idea if Preservation SOS will be allowed access to inspect the interior.

We will just see what happens.

It seems like this is a common occurence in Springfield. I don't live there, and truthfully, I've never spent any time there either.

Can someone explain why so many of your homes are being demolished? I read this entire thread and I still don't see anything in terms of motive.

What does the owner stand to gain by having the structure demolished? It seems, if I'm reading this write, there are many individuals and entities buying up homes, neglecting them, and then having them demolished ... but why?

BG  we live in a city where to many good people , Historic preservation is important, but to some, particularly in  City Management , the regard for history is nix.  You would not believe how many beautiful structures have ended up a pile of rubble..   Springfield has lost significant amounts of historic homes and buildings. 

It is my hope that as we embark on a new administration, combined efforts will help immensely to curtail this .. we have lost far too much already, and we really cannot afford to lose our historic fabric..  In Springfield, the efforts of the residents , and the SOS (Save our Springfield) effort, is fighting to keep these places .

Quote from: Timkin on May 21, 2011, 11:48:34 PM
BG  we live in a city where to many good people , Historic preservation is important, but to some, particularly in  City Management , the regard for history is nix.  You would not believe how many beautiful structures have ended up a pile of rubble..   Springfield has lost significant amounts of historic homes and buildings. 

It is my hope that as we embark on a new administration, combined efforts will help immensely to curtail this .. we have lost far too much already, and we really cannot afford to lose our historic fabric..  In Springfield, the efforts of the residents , and the SOS (Save our Springfield) effort, is fighting to keep these places .

Timkin. I think I understand the city's role in approving the demolition of the structures from what I've read here.

But what has me lost is, why would this doctor buy five houses, neglect them, and then push to have them bulldozed? What's his motive? What is he getting out of it?

A tax write off????? 

Quote from: Timkin on May 21, 2011, 11:59:59 PM
A tax write off????? 

Seriously though. If this many people are buying homes, doing nothing with them, and then cheerleading to have their own property demolished ... there has to be an angle. It's not normal. They have to be getting something for this.

you're right.. that is a mystery to many of us.. and it isnt just houses.. a beautiful 1917  School Building in Brooklyn is rotting down.  It was bought in 1980 and was pretty intact.. its crumbling

Quote from: Timkin on May 22, 2011, 12:03:47 AM
you're right.. that is a mystery to many of us.. and it isnt just houses.. a beautiful 1917  School Building in Brooklyn is rotting down.  It was bought in 1980 and was pretty intact.. its crumbling

Well, if you solve the mystery, I predict you solve the problem.

A doctor from another part of town buys up 5 properties.

Strips them. Neglects them. Then, one at a time, starts pettitioning to have demolished?

Sounds fishy as hell. Something is up. Where's Ken Amaro? He's on your side.

the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

Quote from: Timkin on May 22, 2011, 12:09:52 AM
the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

You know where this doctor works. Why don't you get a video camera. Show up at his office. Wait for him to head to his car and them bum rush him with the camera and ask him questions about what's going on what he's doing?

Big Guy.  The doctor more than likely thought, like many investors, he could easily make a killing on these homes.  He did not know what he was doing which is why he stripped the homes of trim and plaster and removed the chimneys.  Contractors who know nothing about historic preservation give terrible advice and these investors follow it.

In 2007 changes in the ordinance code gave Code Enforcement more responsibility to place safety above preservation so they started to fine these investors for having unsafe structures.  These rolling fines (some as much as $250 per day) made holding on to these properties an unwise business decision.  The only alternative is to demolish to remove the fines.

Even if the homes don't get rolling fines,  they still come up before the special master and gets fines and citations.

Add to this the fact that many folks who moved into Springfield in the mid to late 2000s were promised miraculous revitalization in Springfield -- the poor were to be driven out, the blight was going to be bulldozed.  There was a plan in place endorsed by the neighborhood preservation association, bought and paid for by the developer.  

So now, when people are sitting upside down in their new homes, in the middle of a neighborhod still struggling with the delicate balance of blight and historic preservation, we are in trouble.

But this story has a heart-warming turn.  As the homes are being demolished (an average of 1 and a half a month), even those newly planted in the neighborhood are saying "wait a minute! this isn't what I thought."  And they have become the most vocal on preservation.  They are understanding the layout of the land and working hard to make sure the cold-hearted revitalization doesn't resemble genocide.

However, the big wheels of city government bought into the developer's plan (led by the executive director of SPAR), and gave its blessing on the wholesale demolition of dozens of homes in 2008, 2009, and early 2010.  

Apparently there is no stopping this decision even though the neighborhood organization has changed its stance (with its new Ed) and the neighborhood's positiion on preservation has taken a 180 turn.  

New preservation group is formed (ah hem...Preservation SOS)

We beg, we plead, we cry...

Arriving on the scene, like a white knight, is Bill Killingsworth, who advocates for mothballing legislation, a reasonable middle ground between restoration (impossible to finance in this economy) and demolition.  He set the historic planners on a task of writing legislation based on other communities to make a reasonable "time out" while still addressing the neighborhood blight.

Lisa Sheppard, a historic planner, and Jason Teal with the city's general counsel's office, worked very hard for months shaping a great draft for the council's approval.  It is my understanding that as soon as code enforcement signs off on it, it will take the journey to become law.

Without this legislation, I am afraid most condemned properties in Jacksonville will end up being demolished.  With our housing surplus and the difficulty in getting financing (although I understand 203k loans are out there and Springfield Chicken could speak on this) if we cannot protect these houses until their new owners find them, we will lose them.

We need to change the way we think about these neglected homes.  They are not our biggest blight, they are our city's undervalued asset.  With a little imagination, some elbow grease, a few bucks, these jewels can help to solve downtown's vacancy problems, unemployment in the core, and increase the city's tax base.

Quote from: BigGuy219 on May 22, 2011, 12:12:43 AM

Quote from: Timkin on May 22, 2011, 12:09:52 AM
the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

You know where this doctor works. Why don't you get a video camera. Show up at his office. Wait for him to head to his car and them bum rush him with the camera and ask him questions about what's going on what he's doing?

Actually Big Guy, the Historic Planning Commission is requesting his presence at the next meeting.  I believe they will be asking him those very questions.

Quote from: BigGuy219 on May 21, 2011, 11:50:43 PM

Quote from: Timkin on May 21, 2011, 11:48:34 PM
BG  we live in a city where to many good people , Historic preservation is important, but to some, particularly in  City Management , the regard for history is nix.  You would not believe how many beautiful structures have ended up a pile of rubble..   Springfield has lost significant amounts of historic homes and buildings. 

It is my hope that as we embark on a new administration, combined efforts will help immensely to curtail this .. we have lost far too much already, and we really cannot afford to lose our historic fabric..  In Springfield, the efforts of the residents , and the SOS (Save our Springfield) effort, is fighting to keep these places .

Timkin. I think I understand the city's role in approving the demolition of the structures from what I've read here.

But what has me lost is, why would this doctor buy five houses, neglect them, and then push to have them bulldozed? What's his motive? What is he getting out of it?

I've wondered this myself. Is he able to make money by selling the vacant land? Did he hope to "flip" these homes in the beginning and now finds that he cannot sell them as is but might be able to minimize his losses (and perhaps applicable fines, taxes, etc) by having the homes bulldozed?

Quote from: iloveionia on March 17, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
Buckethead.  What are you and the Mrs waiting for?  Just do it.  This is an absolute great time to buy in Springfield. 

As for 1325 Laura Street.  The Doctor purchased 5 "Madge" homes way back when for that $225,000 lump sum.  He gutted completely (though not necessary) the large yellow house on the corner and renovated it.  It's nice, though nothing original, and currently listed at over 1/2 a million.  No lie. 

Recent vacant lot sales have fetched as low as $8k.  This home does not sit on a large lot, and I do not believe there is a driveway.  Fair to say max $12 - $15k for a vacant lot this size.

Our problem is a structural engineer can come out and write a report (after inspection of course,) and say that the house is unstable.  That it is a "danger."  That it is "structurally unsound."  The owner wants this house torn down, this evident by his complete disregard for his responsibility for the homes he's purchased.  I've tried to contact him to no avail.  There is a neighbor who also wants the house torn down.  MCCD is only concerned for safety, not history.  HPC doesn't seem to have teeth, and certainly when it comes to safety and "eminent danger," the house it out of their hands.  HPC can persue "Demolition by Neglect" which guarantees a minimum $10k fine or possibly rebuilding the home.  But the lien attaches to the house, not the owner.  Quite simply there is no consequence for the owner, just the house, and in my opinion, the neighborhood. 

How can someone, anyone, buy in a Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood and champion demolition.  It is beyond my scope of understanding.

And as for the house falling down on someone or something or itself? Let us remember Chicken Little.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

In reading page 9 of this thread, to me, it sounds like the implication is that if MCCD cites a house as an unsafe structure that it must be dangerous. I know sheclown didn't mean to leave that impression, but that's how I'm reading some of this, so I wanted to chime in.

The truth is, homes have been placed on the formal track for demolition simply because of a little loose roofing, or because they have "been in the system" for a long time.  Not because they are in danger of falling down.  Even houses with foundation issues can be repaired...jacked up and stabilzed.  Many of them have already been.  That's the beauty of the type of construction they have.

In the case of this house, the owner is asking to demolish it, with the "stated intent" (now) of rehabbing the other two.  It isn't the first time he's done this.  When the doctor bought the five houses, people lived in them. They needed some restoration work, certainly, but they were inhabited.

He was able to obtain permission to demolish one of them (the "worst one") by a stated intent to rehab the others.  Not sure of the timeline, before or after the first demo request, but he rehabbed one, just one, of the five. On that one, he did unnecessary work at additional cost to himself, and then put the corner house on the market at $725,000, where it has sat...for years...because it was overpriced  It is currently priced at over $650,000, and still sitting there...still overpriced for the market...and WAY overpriced for the current market.  

After removing the windows and chimnney of 1325 Laura, and the historical integrity by removing the trim, etc, this house is still standing straight, and not sagging.  His lawyer even blamed former owners for the houses' issues.  As if removing as much of the structure as the doctor has would not have any affect.

Does it need help?  Definitely.    A Springfield couple I know tried to obtain one of these house prior to being outbid by this investor.  They told me these houses were the best of the fixer-uppers they had seen.  All the walls in 1325 were intact, the fireplace as there, and all the windows were in place.  Thanks to the doctor, it will be harder to rehab.  But it isn't in danger of falling down.

Why does he want to demolish it?  I can't say.  His lawyer said at the April HPC meeting that he has a "vision" and his lawyer brought a rendering of new houses to the April HPC meeting.  I was late due to my schedule, so I don't know if the row of houses on the rendering was all new, or if the doctor's "vision" included only 2 new houses...one on the vacant lot of the home he already destroyed and one on the vacant lot he wants to make by destryong this one.  But this I can say...where is his "stated intent" of rehabbing the remaining houses.  There are two additional houses sitting there now.  They have been sitting there for years.  If he has a "stated intent" of rehabbing them, why hasn't he started? 

In a National Trust Historic District, the fact is that he has already demolished one historic home, and is requesting to demolish another historic home.  That is not MY "vision" for a historic district, nor the "vision" of the National Trust.

Good point, Debbie.  Thanks for the clarification.

The changes in 2007 put "safety" before "preservation" meaning that if an old house has any appearance of being unsafe (including not being up to current codes in some cases -- this has been cited as reason for instability from some structural engineers -- shoot new houses should be so well-built) Code has much more power to demolish and in fact is charged with this duty.

I am told by a long-standing Laura Street resident who toured 1325 Laura in 2001 that is was condemned in 2001. The initial complaints were citizen made, and it appears as though there may have been a small fire that prompted MCCD to make an interior investigation.  Regardless, Code gained access to the inside.  Here are the initial complaints, appears to be prior to 5/2002 these were found by code (this is a cut/paste and there are errors in spelling et. al that are codes, not mine):

1.  Bedroom 1 Repair Wall has holes and/or cracks, or is
deteriorated, damaged, or otherwise
unsound.
2.  Entire Repair Window(s) required for ventilation
cannot be easily opened and/or closed.
3.  Bathroom 1 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
4.  Bedroom 2 Clean Floor is dirty or is in otherwise
insanitary condition.
5.  Bedroom 3 Clean Floor is dirty or is in otherwise
insanitary condition.
6.   Structure is in violation of the Property
Safety and Maintenance Code, Chapter
518, PART 3
7.  Structure is boarded up, but is still in
violation of building or other codes.
8.   Structure constitutes a fire/windstorm
hazard due to deterioration/damage &
the health/safety of occupants or the
public.
9.   Structure is unfit for human habitation
and poses a threat to the health and
safety of the occupants.
10.  Bathroom 1 Repair Showerhead is missing or is in need of
repair.
11.  Bathroom 2 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
12.  Bathroom 3 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
13.  Rear Repair Exterior door hardware is in poor
working condition, is the improper type,
and/or is missing.
14.  Entire Repair Paint or other surface protection is
deteriorated.
15.  Front Repair Protective railings or handrails are
deteriorated or damaged.
16.  Right Side Correct Structure constitutes a fire/windstorm
hazard due to deterioration/damage &
the health/safety of occupants or the
public.
17.  Entire Provide Dwelling or unit not provided with
electric service.

There are a few other items, but you get the idea. Some of this is asinine.

Look at the initial violations in 5/2002 that caused it condemnation.  Sounds to me like a case of poor property management,  i.e. a "slumlord." The Good Doctor purchased a home that was cosmetically repairable, but he did nothing, well, scratch that.  He gutted the home, ripped out the chimney and then allowed the elements to get at the home to cause it's rapid deterioationand blight on the neighborhood.

Regardless, the house is not going to fall.  It is not in eminent danger of collapse on itself or passerbys or a neighboring house.  Time to get this old girl restored.  I can not accept the notion of Henny Penny's cries of "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."  Rather I suscribe to the modern interpretation of the Brother's Grimm's written version of The Frog Prince.  "Kiss a frog and get a prince."  Springfield has kissed a lot of frogs and there is plenty more puckering that can and should and WILL be done. 

Deferred again.

This time there wasn't a quorum to vote on it as one of the commissioners had been hired by the doctor to work on the Laura Street project and had to excuse himself from the voting.

good.

Forgive me for arriving late to the discussion, and I am sure this has already been mentioned, but nevertheless I thought I'd mention it.

Let us assume for a moment that nothing sinister is going on here. If it is simply a man who bought low cost housing in Springfield before the housing collapse, hoping to flip for a profit, but is now being hit with fines making bulldozing the only way out ... are there any other way outs?

It has been mentioned he could sell the house for $10,000. However, I believe I read that he paid $225,000 for 5 houses? That's a dramatic financial loss he's taking.

Since it is a historic district, has 'donating' the houses ever been considered? Would it be possible for the house to be donated to a non-profit historic society, allowing the owner to receive a tax writeoff for the full appraised value of the house? Not sure if this has been considered, or even if it's realistic.

I am pretty sure Big Guy that the good doctor has not lost a thing. Pretty sure he made back his investment in one or two of those properties.  Now it may be that he gutted this place , intending to make a buck on it, and THEN the market went in the tank.. Still .. a bad Reason to tear a chimney out and not patch the hole where it was , in the roof.  just silly ... I would have at least patched that area.

There are too many of the scenarios not just in Springfield but in Jacksonville in general . Buy something.. neglect it. let fines accumulate. Demolish by neglect.  The very  same thing has been presented for PS # 4   .. When it was purchased it needed a re roofing and some upgrades. NOW it needs MILLIONS because it was neglected and has been vandalized ,adding to the tab. 

Quote from: Timkin on May 25, 2011, 11:16:36 PM
I am pretty sure Big Guy that the good doctor has not lost a thing. Pretty sure he made back his investment in one or two of those properties.  Now it may be that he gutted this place , intending to make a buck on it, and THEN the market went in the tank.. Still .. a bad Reason to tear a chimney out and not patch the hole where it was , in the roof.  just silly ... I would have at least patched that area.

There are too many of the scenarios not just in Springfield but in Jacksonville in general . Buy something.. neglect it. let fines accumulate. Demolish by neglect.  The very  same thing has been presented for PS # 4   .. When it was purchased it needed a re roofing and some upgrades. NOW it needs MILLIONS because it was neglected and has been vandalized ,adding to the tab. 

Timkin, I just can't get my mind around this. I could understand if a few people were doing this. But it sounds rampant. Almost like an epidemic.

Has anyone ever bought a dillapidated property and been approached to let it rot and be demolitioned for a payoff?

I know it sounds far fetched, and paranoid, but when you tie in the fact that you have this many houses being demo'd and an arsonist on the loose ... maybe the people out to get you aren't in your head?

well if they HAVE I have nothing formal to prove it .. I have to wonder the same thing though.. nothing else makes sense.   Buy a declining property.. do nothing to maintain it, let it continue to decay.  Demolish from neglect. 

You are probably on to something.  How to prove it

Quote from: Timkin on May 25, 2011, 11:45:37 PM
well if they HAVE I have nothing formal to prove it .. I have to wonder the same thing though.. nothing else makes sense.   Buy a declining property.. do nothing to maintain it, let it continue to decay.  Demolish from neglect. 

You are probably on to something.  How to prove it

Well, you have a doctor from another part of town show up and buy five properties at cut throat rates? First, I'd look into his property history. Does he have a record of purchasing properties to rehab?

It would seem strange for someone to out of the blue say "Hey. I'm going to buy FIVE houses in Springfield to rehab as my first ever involvement in flipping houses."

If this is the guy's first time, then it does seem 'off' that he'd buy more than one. I realize not everyone thinks like me, but if this were something I was looking to do to make a legitimate profit, for my first time I'd just buy one and see how that experience went before tying up HALF A MILLION (house prices, plus rehab costs) in FIVE houses.

As my wonderful Jewish friends in New York would say, it's not kosher.

The owner of the property has been approached a number of times about selling or donating the property.  He seems adamant that he wants to see his "vision" on that block and nothing is going to change that.  Over the years I've seen people invest in stocks when they know nothing about the market and sometimes they've made money and sometimes they've lost.  The same thing is true in real estate.  A number of people who didn't know what they were doing bought homes during boom years and made money and a whole bunch didn't.

I'm not saying which group this guy falls into, but he bought pre-boom and then did nothing during that hey day.  Now for some reason he's decided to take down another one of his purchases, though I can't see a reason for the timing.  He doesn't have a time frame for his "vision" so it doesn't seem imperative that a demolition be done now.

What is apparent is his total lack of personal involvement or sense of responsibility for the properties he bought.  He seems content to let them deteriorate, get advice from the wrong people, and to stubbornly insist on a "vision" that makes no economic sense.  AND he refuses to show up and fight his own battles, but instead sends his legal and construction minions to do it for him.

But I guess he's sitting in his million dollar plus riverfront home and doesn't want to get involved with the neighborhood he seems indifferent to.  (Sorry to the English majors for ending with a preposition.)

The biggest struggle is money.  I'll assume the Good Doctor has money, so I am not talking about him.  The home could be donated for the tax write-off (I'm not an accountant, so I don't know the specifics,) whether the doctor wants to or not,  I don't know.  That said, we, Preservation SOS (and other local non-profits) have been "offered" houses for donation.  Problem is none of us (us being SOS,) are independently wealthy.  We aren't even a year old yet and we work 100% on volunteerism and financial donations both cash and in-kind.  It is my frustration.  Well, I have a lot of frustrations about the houses needing love in Springfield, but lack of money is certainly one. 

Would the doctor lose money on the house?  Well no more than he would by paying for the demolition, fines, and any back taxes.  I get angry when I think about (in this particular case,) how he blatently ignored the fact that he purchased 5 homes and did diddly squat.  Oh, wait, he gutted and "rehabbed" one home, yeah the home currently listed on the MLS for over 1/2 million dollars, yeah, that home.  Had he done what many were doing in 2004/2005 he would have made BANK, and that corner of Laura would likely look loved. 

Sigh.

Quote from: Springfield Chicken on May 26, 2011, 09:29:42 AM
The owner of the property has been approached a number of times about selling or donating the property.  He seems adamant that he wants to see his "vision" on that block and nothing is going to change that.  Over the years I've seen people invest in stocks when they know nothing about the market and sometimes they've made money and sometimes they've lost.  The same thing is true in real estate.  A number of people who didn't know what they were doing bought homes during boom years and made money and a whole bunch didn't.

I'm not saying which group this guy falls into, but he bought pre-boom and then did nothing during that hey day.  Now for some reason he's decided to take down another one of his purchases, though I can't see a reason for the timing.  He doesn't have a time frame for his "vision" so it doesn't seem imperative that a demolition be done now.

What is apparent is his total lack of personal involvement or sense of responsibility for the properties he bought.  He seems content to let them deteriorate, get advice from the wrong people, and to stubbornly insist on a "vision" that makes no economic sense.  AND he refuses to show up and fight his own battles, but instead sends his legal and construction minions to do it for him.

But I guess he's sitting in his million dollar plus riverfront home and doesn't want to get involved with the neighborhood he seems indifferent to.  (Sorry to the English majors for ending with a preposition.)

Are these contiguous or separate parcels? Are there any vacant lots next to the ones he's tearing down?

I agree with the other posters who said there's an angle to this, we just don't know what it is.

Nobody pisses away money like this for no reason.

Separate Parcels.
Yes, Vacant lot next to 1325 Laura where he DID have the 5th house, but that was torn down some time ago under his ownership.

Quote from: iloveionia on May 26, 2011, 09:12:55 PM
Separate Parcels.
Yes, Vacant lot next to 1325 Laura where he DID have the 5th house, but that was torn down some time ago under his ownership.

Hmm. I think we need a crude rendering of where these 5 properties are located on the map. And the status of the adjacent lots.

That may begin to paint a picture.

Quote from: BigGuy219 on May 26, 2011, 09:27:27 PM

Quote from: iloveionia on May 26, 2011, 09:12:55 PM
Separate Parcels.
Yes, Vacant lot next to 1325 Laura where he DID have the 5th house, but that was torn down some time ago under his ownership.

Hmm. I think we need a crude rendering of where these 5 properties are located on the map. And the status of the adjacent lots.

That may begin to paint a picture.

+1

Standing at the intersection of 3rd/Laura and looking north, and on the east side of Laura.
1303 Laura (big yellow, remodeled, owned by doctor)
1311 Laura (needs love, owned by doctor)
1315 Laura (needs love, owned by doctor)
1319 Laura (vacant lot, owned by doctor, had house, demolished while doctor owned)
1325 Laura (the house this thread is about, owned by the doctor)
1331 Laura (a neighbor who wants the house demolished, spoke at HPC meeting)

So they all line up beginning from the east side of Laura from 3rd going north, and the lots extend from Laura Street to the alley.

Taxes are owed since 2009.
Even on the vacant lot.

http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMaps/viewer.htm?Layers=0110110000110000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000110&Tools=Yes&ActiveLayer=2&Query=RE%20%3D%20%27070877 0000%27&Queryzoom=Yes

Quote from: iloveionia on May 26, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Standing at the intersection of 3rd/Laura and looking north, and on the east side of Laura.
1303 Laura (big yellow, remodeled, owned by doctor)
1311 Laura (needs love, owned by doctor)
1315 Laura (needs love, owned by doctor)
1319 Laura (vacant lot, owned by doctor, had house, demolished while doctor owned)
1325 Laura (the house this thread is about, owned by the doctor)
1331 Laura (a neighbor who wants the house demolished, spoke at HPC meeting)

So they all line up beginning from the east side of Laura from 3rd going north, and the lots extend from Laura Street to the alley.

Taxes are owed since 2009.
Even on the vacant lot.

Well if they're all lined up like ducks in a row that seems suspicious.

I notice in Springfield the houses are rather close to one another. That's kind of unappealing to some.

If he has two (or more) vacant lots adjoining one another, can he granted a zoning ordance to build one structure that occupies the lots? i.e. combine the lots. If so, that could be where this is going.

Yeah, that's exactly what's going on.

This guy wants to combine the lots and build a big structure. Maybe apartments?

This discovery that all the property is actually adjoining, which isn't obvious just from the addresses, should IMMEDIATELY be brought up before the HPC. What he's doing is making excuses to get them demolished one by one, so he can combine the property and do something with it that he can't do presently with individual parcels.

The doctor's contractor showed drawings which shows his "vision" for this corner.  It includes restoration of some of the houses and new construction where this current house now sits.

Actually one of the commissioners did the drawing and that is why he couldn't vote at the last meeting.

Quote from: sheclown on May 27, 2011, 07:51:47 AM
The HPC is fully aware of this.  

He showed drawings (which one of the commissioners was hired to do) which shows his "vision" for this corner.  It includes restoration of some of the houses and new construction where this current house now sits.

The 'vision' may have changed with the economy. I'd be worried about apartments or some other large structure on the combined lots. Certainly seems suspicious, with all of them in a row like that, and coming down one by one.

I doubt he could get the zoning changed to anything other than the single family plat that exists now.  It's easier to zone down in density than up and in the middle of that area it would be hard to justify a need to do it, especially with the number of vacancies in multi-family properties.
That having been said, he did go to the trouble of having his "vision" drawn up and I believe he honestly wants to do it, even though it makes no economic sense whatsoever, and he has no timetable for it.

Chicken, I think that was his "vision" all along.  He just recently paid to have a drawing done of it.

He's completely out of touch with reality, and has been all along.  He put that yellow one on the market at $725,000 several years ago, at the top of the market, at a time when $600,000 was the most paid for a house in Springfield.  And that was Faye's house on Boulevard directly facing Klutho Park...a much nicer house, and a much nicer location.

If that is his true vision then he's dipping into the ether he uses on his patients!

well, maybe he thinks like his patients, the house will get better faster if he does nothing :)

I hope he's not secretly planning to build a stripmall.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/staircase-1-1.jpg)

The fifth time this has come before the Historic Planning Commission for demolition in five months.

Five times the neighborhood has spoken to save this structure, in the last five months.

Emails have been sent, phone calls have been made.

And yet, here we are, once again before commissioners whose task it is to save homes, begging to stop the bulldozer.

June 22nd, once agan.

a picture from before

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/before.jpg)

(thanks Blanchards!)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325NLaurabackroom.jpg)

wonder where all the trim went?

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1325%20Laura/roofrafters-1.jpg)

DENIED.
That's right.
Denied.

WAHOOO!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: iloveionia on June 22, 2011, 04:36:56 PM
DENIED.
That's right.
Denied.

Great outcome.

The commission was kick ass today.  I am very appreciative of their denial. 

I wonder if there could be an ordinance that required photos be taken when ever a property in a historic district changes hands and those be made part of the Clerk of Court records.

This would present evidence against those who would attempt demolition by virtue of neglect or willful  damages.

Teeth in the ordinance would require a structure be restored to an original state, based on those photos.

Good idea Ralph.

AWESOME!!!!

Who would be responsible for taking the photos?  The new homeowner?

There is that technical term called "disclosure". I would make the seller responsible for the photos since he/she would be the one responsible  for whatever was done to the house. If the owner of a house is a bank, investor or holding company there should be no difference. You own the house, you take the photos.

As an afterthought, photos should also be required whenever a building permit is issued. All  permit documentation, including blueprints, is digitized so there would be little possibility of print photos being "misplaced".

This is on the agenda for next Wednesday:

QuoteCondemned Properties
1. Request of Municipal Code Compliance Division to discuss 1325 North Laura Street

As you recall, code brought this to the HPC in February at which time HPC made some stipulations that code follow before allowing the house to be demo'd.  The next month, the house was brought to the commissioners by the owner -- March, April, May,  and in June the HPC denied this request.

It will be interesting to see what happens,

Clearly, a city department wants to flex their muscles.
I have my "speculations" of what is going to happen.

This house was brought before hpc once again. This time code enforcement brought it to the commissioners. The hpc voted on behalf of saving the house once
Again

That's great!

Finally!  HPC is protecting Springfield!
Thank you!

As "unsafe" and "condemned" are defined by law, there needs to be a different term to describe a structure which is not habitable and yet not likely to fall down on a passerby.  Until we get this on the books, there will be useless battles over terms.

Code is always going to think "unsafe" is corrected by making it habitable or wiping it out.  They are currently directed to by law.  This needs to change.

To be honest with you, had they approved demolition, I would have lost it right there.  After the loss of the Patterson Apts, then Market Street, the loss of this one so soon would have been too much.

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/autumnunderlaurast.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/autumnunderlaurast.jpg.html)

Psos joined the historic planning department and the owner's agent for a pre-mothball inspection of this house. We also spoke to a neighbor about her concerns regarding safety and blight.

I think we have a plan.

Autumn Martinage, planner, is pictured above doing a thorough investigation of the condition of the house.

Mothball application accepted by HPC!! Now it is time to roll up our sleeves and make it happen!!

The mothballing process for this house will include the following:  the roof will be secure and leakproof.  Flapping panels will be attached.  Areas without roofing material will be covered.  Windows will be boarded a la mothball style with the painted sashes and the blacked out background.  All open areas of siding will be covered and the whole house will be primed with a fresh coat of primer white.  The interior temporary bracing will be inspected and repaired or altered to make sure the house is secure.  This temporary bracing will be inspected by the building department.  The interior will be cleaned to "broom swept" condition.  There will be security lights installed in the front and back.  The crawl space will be protected with framed in lattice.  And last, but not least, there will be some landscaping in the front to pretty it up.

This is a rough explanation. If you would like more information contact PSOS and we will fill you in on the process.

Hooray for MOTHBALLING!  And as always, when we think about these, we think of our friend, Bill Killingsworth.

Mothballing removes blight and prevents any further deterioration.  It is monitored over the course of the 3-year certificate and work is done on the property (following a submitted plan to HPC) to bring it to it's certificate of occupancy. 

photo from 1985

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325NORTHLAURASTREETjpg.png) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325NORTHLAURASTREETjpg.png.html)

from Springfield heritage Education Center website

More on the ongoing saga that is dealing with MCCD in Jacksonville. Steve Heykens of the Palace Company is the contractor hired to do the mothballing on this house. We put him in touch with the architect we use and who has done the stabilization/ shoring plans for several of our houses.  A stabilization/ shoring plan was ,in this case simply written up as most of the required shoring is already there and Steve goes down to pull a permit. The first thing that happens is that the Building Department doesn't even think a permit is needed for what he is doing. Steve goes to the MCC and gets told that he must have a shoring engineer do the shoring plan.

I did some research and found out that yes, the Final Order for this mothballing COA does state that a Shoring Engineer must draw up a shoring plan. The issue is this. Shoring engineering is a discipline of engineering and architecture. It is not a separate career or license. The ordinance that governs what can be required to mothball a structure states simply that:

I. Stabilization Specifications
The structural stabilization needs identified by the Municipal Code Compliance Division as a result of it being classified as an unsafe structure as defined under Section 518.111 shall be met by following a scope of work or drawing approved by a licensed structural engineer, the Chief of Building Inspection Division or the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division.

So any of the three entities can approve the shoring plan. The fact that the ordinance lists a licensed structural engineer as being able to APPROVE the plan means that someone else can draw it up, including an architect for instance. There is no requirement that a structural engineer be used. Which is why we use an Architect familiar with the old houses and how they are built. In addition, the "or" between scope of work and drawing means that the "shoring plan" can be either a drawing or just a plan,  a list of what needs to be done to accomplish that shoring. We can add to this the fact that the inspectors who write up the condemnations do not have the correct qualifications themselves to determine the structural needs of a structure. You really do need to use a qualified person to come up with not only the plan but to determine what the real needs are. And frankly, the Municipal Code Compliance Chief has a Masters of Public Administration and so is hardly qualified to approve a shoring plan anyway so approval by her or her department seems pretty meaningless.

What this means in practice is that as a Shoring Engineer really doesn't exist as specified, the best thing to do is to make sure the person who does the work is indeed qualified and then get that plan approved as required under the actual law.  As the building inspection department deals with this daily, the best way to do that is to pull that permit. I also communicated with Autumn Martigage (Historic Department Planner) about this and have this from an e-mail: “If MCCD or Building Inspection Chief are willing to accept a shoring plan submitted by an architect than we will accept that as well.” In theory, every permit must be approved by the Chief. In practice, that is accomplished by the Chief delegating the responsibility to other, qualified people. That is how the system works. Once a permit is issued and approved, it is technically "approved by the Building Inspection Chief."

Based on the above, I advised Steve to go get a permit and that will be accepted. He did this on Friday and then went to MCCD to get that piece of paper from them stating he had the right to be on the condemned property. He got told that no, he had to show them a drawing done by a shoring engineer before they would give him permission to be on the property. That he has a permit on and so it is now his legal job site making him responsible for what happens on that job site. Remember, the MCCD's job is to make things safe. The purpose of the mothballing is to make things safe and yet, they are ignoring both the law and common sense to make it impossible to make this structure safe for the general public.

Is there any doubt that the MCCD is out of control?

Licensed building contractor, with permit and drawings in hand to brace the interior of the house, is prevented from doing his job?

Denied access?

Isn't access given by the building department when they issue a building permit?

Stephen, what are you talking about?

Hooray!!  Permit pulled.  Access granted.

Mothballing work begins today.

"The Palace Company" has begun interior cleanup.

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mothballing1325laura.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mothballing1325laura.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325Lauramothballing2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325Lauramothballing2.jpg.html)

"faux windows"  per mothballing requirements -- looks pretty good huh?

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325lauramothballing3.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325lauramothballing3.jpg.html)

getting there...

It sure is.  Thanks to all on the PSOS team for working so hard with so little in order to preserve what we have for future generations.  Never forget with all the aggravation and struggle, there are those in the community who cannot thank you enough for taking on the fight to save the historic fabric of Springfield.  You guys are the best!

That looks so good I might have to install them on my own house!

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg.html)

That looks really good!  The faux window idea is great.

Quote from: sheclown on July 30, 2013, 05:33:54 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg.html)

Hmm, so you can remove the blight and make it safe without demolishing it.  Amazin', ain't it?

And all for about half of what a demolition would have cost the city.

Quote from: strider on July 30, 2013, 05:53:26 PM

Quote from: sheclown on July 30, 2013, 05:33:54 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1325Lauramothballing4.jpg.html)

Hmm, so you can remove the blight and make it safe without demolishing it.  Amazin', ain't it?

And all for about half of what a demolition would have cost the city.

What a concept!  ;)

Maybe, maybe not.  But in the meantime, it's stable, safe, and looks so much better.  We hope the owner will now finish the remaining three houses, including this one.

I thought it would be a great visual to see the before and after side by side.  Mothballing makes a HUGE difference.  And Apache, yes, this house may "still sit for years to come as is."  But my oh my!  Having an historic structure within an historic district is WAAAY better than a vacant lot.  This home has been standing since 1905...that's 113 years!!  The mothballing is not yet complete, but WOW!!  Now she is pretty while waiting to be fully restored. 

(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Laura1325MothballBeforeandAfter.jpg)

I suppose I'll comment on this as well.  I represent the owner on this and the other adjacent properties.  They are actively being worked on and will not be entering foreclosure as they are already paid for; the reason for the lack of work was a lack of capital to infuse at high enough levels to pull COAs and other assorted permits.  We are considering an offer on 1325 at this time, but no decisions have been made.  If the sale goes through, I will be assisting the buyer in navigating the HPC processes as I have the current owner.  I have begun the COA process on 1311 and 1315, so you will hopefully be able to see work commencing in the next several months, and the vision for these properties will actually be more evident. 

Quote from: chris on July 31, 2013, 10:09:45 AM
I suppose I'll comment on this as well.  I represent the owner on this and the other adjacent properties.  They are actively being worked on and will not be entering foreclosure as they are already paid for; the reason for the lack of work was a lack of capital to infuse at high enough levels to pull COAs and other assorted permits.  We are considering an offer on 1325 at this time, but no decisions have been made.  If the sale goes through, I will be assisting the buyer in navigating the HPC processes as I have the current owner.  I have begun the COA process on 1311 and 1315, so you will hopefully be able to see work commencing in the next several months, and the vision for these properties will actually be more evident. 

Chris, keep on keeping on.  There is no way to adequately measure the positive impact of this type of effort.  Good stuff.

Quote from: chris on July 31, 2013, 10:09:45 AM
I suppose I'll comment on this as well.  I represent the owner on this and the other adjacent properties.  They are actively being worked on and will not be entering foreclosure as they are already paid for; the reason for the lack of work was a lack of capital to infuse at high enough levels to pull COAs and other assorted permits.  We are considering an offer on 1325 at this time, but no decisions have been made.  If the sale goes through, I will be assisting the buyer in navigating the HPC processes as I have the current owner.  I have begun the COA process on 1311 and 1315, so you will hopefully be able to see work commencing in the next several months, and the vision for these properties will actually be more evident. 

Thank you Chris!!!  It looks gorgeous!

Looks great. I just wowed a co-worker with the before and after pic. She thought the windows were real.

I love, love, love the house with the coved rafter tails.  I can't wait to see that one when it's finished.

Quote from: chris on July 31, 2013, 10:09:45 AM
I suppose I'll comment on this as well.  I represent the owner on this and the other adjacent properties.  They are actively being worked on and will not be entering foreclosure as they are already paid for; the reason for the lack of work was a lack of capital to infuse at high enough levels to pull COAs and other assorted permits.  We are considering an offer on 1325 at this time, but no decisions have been made.  If the sale goes through, I will be assisting the buyer in navigating the HPC processes as I have the current owner.  I have begun the COA process on 1311 and 1315, so you will hopefully be able to see work commencing in the next several months, and the vision for these properties will actually be more evident.

It looks FANTASTIC Chris!!  Thank you for spearheading the mothballing and helping to SAVE THE HOUSE!  :)

Looks great! Thank you for all your hard work! I look forward to seeing the transformation of these properties.

Quote from: Apache on July 31, 2013, 11:19:57 PM

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 31, 2013, 11:15:56 PM

Quote from: chris on July 31, 2013, 10:09:45 AM
I suppose I'll comment on this as well.  I represent the owner on this and the other adjacent properties.  They are actively being worked on and will not be entering foreclosure as they are already paid for; the reason for the lack of work was a lack of capital to infuse at high enough levels to pull COAs and other assorted permits.  We are considering an offer on 1325 at this time, but no decisions have been made.  If the sale goes through, I will be assisting the buyer in navigating the HPC processes as I have the current owner.  I have begun the COA process on 1311 and 1315, so you will hopefully be able to see work commencing in the next several months, and the vision for these properties will actually be more evident.

It looks FANTASTIC Chris!!  Thank you for spearheading the mothballing and helping to SAVE THE HOUSE!  :)

So who spearheaded this mothball and actually did the work? Chris or PSOS? I have become confused here.

The mothballing legislation was spearheaded by Preservation SOS.  This house was at high risk of being demolished several times.  The Municipal Code Compliance Department wanted it down.  A neighbor and a faction within SPAR Council wanted it down. The Doctor himself asked to be allowed to demolish it.  PSOS fought for this house.  The HPC supported the saving of this house.  And recently Chris has stepped up and with the Doctor's support, saved this house.  And by doing that, he has saved the other two as well.

The Doctor is not this bad person who wanted to spend too much on the rehab of these houses, he is someone who didn't know enough and happened to hire the wrong contractors, ones that knew nothing about the old houses they were hired to work on.  Like many, the Doctor fell on harder times and we know how MCC works and it is hard not to just throw up your hands and walk away.  Some wanted to let him.  We didn't.  So the house, considered too ugly by some to be allowed to stand, has a very positive chance at becoming someone's home in a few years rather than being nothing but an empty lot doing nothing for the neighborhood.

The credit goes to Chris for working hard to make this mothballing happen and to the Doctor, who as an owner, still had the choice of doing nothing or stepping up and doing the right thing.  I'd like to believe that he stepped up because PSOS did as well and offered help rather than the hindering of others.

Sometime I think it is really that simple: just Help rather than Hinder.

PSOS was not involved in the actual work although we did give our 2 cents worth (which should not surprise anyone) and helped out in the permitting and the scope of work.

The doctor hired a local contractor, "The Palace Company" to do the work.  They did a great job and it ended up costing less than a demolition would have -- which has been PSOS's point all along.

https://www.facebook.com/1034473564/posts/10221241336196338/

This house was recently bought by skilled and savvy investors who have hired me and Joe to renovate.

Renovations are nearly complete and I cannot tell you the joy it brings me to be involved in this.

What was once blight is now providing work for local craftsmen, a beautiful home for a family, infill for a once-neglected block, sales and property tax for our city.  New residents to buy that local pizza and drink that craft beer.

Historic preservation is not about drooling over some romantic notion of the past, it's about the very real value of quality materials and workmanship and the financial value it adds to the neighborhood.

Okay, maybe a bit of drooling.

Wow, it looks great! Very impressed!

Impressive indeed, sheclown.  I have followed Springfield's progress and setbacks since the late '90's and it has been fits and starts to be sure. You have done a LOT to move the neighborhood forward. Bless you for all you have done.

Thanks guys.