COA has been pulled.
342 West 10th Street.
Does not need to go before HPC because it is on the freakin' formal track.
Some of us may not be familiar with Patterson Apartment Building. Where is it located, and what does it look like? :D
-Josh
I'll post a picture as soon as I can. It is yellowish brick on West 10th Street and it has "Patterson Apts" engraved on the header.
(http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab131/jbroadglide/2-18-09057.jpg)
(http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab131/jbroadglide/3_3_08015.jpg)
OH MY GOD!?!
What is wrong with this darling building?!
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 21, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
OH MY GOD!?!
What is wrong with this darling building?!
-Josh
The sorry ass owner, is what's wrong! He had been asked to sell it, so the jerk put it up for almost 200k. Now it's coming down....this is what's wrong with this freaking city!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, another empty lot in Springfield? Awesome. :(
They pulled a permit to disconnect the sewer on 3/31.
typical jacksonville.....
when will charleston send down some of their young historic preservation majors....?
we could use a few on the city's payroll...
Oh man, that's so beautiful. What a waste that it is being torn down.
What does it take to do an emergency halt and request an extension?
-Josh
Ok, so do we need to do? Do we have access to the engineer's report that says it cannot be saved? What is the reason for the demolition?
Kim
I'm not an engineer and I've seen examples of some seriously bad looking buildings that were saved. But this building from the other side looks substantially worse. Giant roof damage so it would take some effort to properly board and secure this one. Which I would still bet is cheaper than a demolition.
Quote from: Springfield Chicken on April 21, 2011, 04:22:01 PM
I'm not an engineer and I've seen examples of some seriously bad looking buildings that were saved. But this building from the other side looks substantially worse. Giant roof damage so it would take some effort to properly board and secure this one. Which I would still bet is cheaper than a demolition.
If the damage is so intensive, it would be nice if someone could get the blueprints of this house, and buy the lot cheaper on the ground, and then rebuild to its former glory based on the blueprints.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 21, 2011, 04:33:30 PM
Quote from: Springfield Chicken on April 21, 2011, 04:22:01 PM
I'm not an engineer and I've seen examples of some seriously bad looking buildings that were saved. But this building from the other side looks substantially worse. Giant roof damage so it would take some effort to properly board and secure this one. Which I would still bet is cheaper than a demolition.
If the damage is so intensive, it would be nice if someone could get the blueprints of this house, and buy the lot cheaper on the ground, and then rebuild to its former glory based on the blueprints.
-Josh
I would think to REPLICATE the house in the exact same construction as it currently is , VS saving it by mothballing /selling/rehabbing it would cost as much , if not more than fixing the purchase of / fixing the problems.
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 04:45:07 PM
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 21, 2011, 04:33:30 PM
Quote from: Springfield Chicken on April 21, 2011, 04:22:01 PM
I'm not an engineer and I've seen examples of some seriously bad looking buildings that were saved. But this building from the other side looks substantially worse. Giant roof damage so it would take some effort to properly board and secure this one. Which I would still bet is cheaper than a demolition.
If the damage is so intensive, it would be nice if someone could get the blueprints of this house, and buy the lot cheaper on the ground, and then rebuild to its former glory based on the blueprints.
-Josh
I would think to REPLICATE the house in the exact same construction as it currently is , VS saving it by mothballing /selling/rehabbing it would cost as much , if not more than fixing the purchase of / fixing the problems.
According to you, if you said that the cost on both sides are going to cancel it out, then what is the fundamental thing to do with this house? I would say...
save, repair, and weep.-Josh
The majority of the roof damage is to the back porch.
Judging from what I saw the photos and heard information from people, and I would very much like to see in person... If the roof damage is only limited to the back porch, that is EASILY replaced and not so much expensive compared to a main roof damage. This building has bricks all around it, so it should be built like a tank. I am no engineer, but brick buildings tends to last longer than wooden building obviously.
So, what is the deal with the owner AND the city?
-Josh
Call the council person for the district. Anyone else in the city will give you the run around if its been fast tracked.
QuoteThe sorry ass owner, is what's wrong!
Public records show it belongs to
MCGRIFF CHARLES L ET AL
12470 APPLE LEAF DR
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32224
Apparently it was willed to he and his family after his father passed away. I do not show a mortgage on the property through the city records, so he owns it all. He'll get a nice bill from the city to tear it down at least.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 21, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
Call the council person for the district. Anyone else in the city will give you the run around if its been fast tracked.
QuoteThe sorry ass owner, is what's wrong!
Public records show it belongs to
MCGRIFF CHARLES L ET AL
12470 APPLE LEAF DR
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32224
Apparently it was willed to he and his family after his father passed away. I do not show a mortgage on the property through the city records, so he owns it all. He'll get a nice bill from the city to tear it down at least.
Like the new avatar M-train :)
QuoteLike the new avatar M-train
Thanks, I could not do the whole thing, I mean I like him more than the other candidate, but I am not hog wild crazy about him though either, still allegiances do matter.
they do , indeed.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 21, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
QuoteLike the new avatar M-train
Thanks, I could not do the whole thing, I mean I like him more than the other candidate, but I am not hog wild crazy about him though either, still allegiances do matter.
WHOA! Did I just saw a hint of regret showing there? -rubs my eyes again- Don't tell me I just read that...
-Josh
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 21, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
Call the council person for the district. Anyone else in the city will give you the run around if its been fast tracked.
QuoteThe sorry ass owner, is what's wrong!
Public records show it belongs to
MCGRIFF CHARLES L ET AL
12470 APPLE LEAF DR
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32224
Apparently it was willed to he and his family after his father passed away. I do not show a mortgage on the property through the city records, so he owns it all. He'll get a nice bill from the city to tear it down at least.
It would be OUR OBLIGATION as the taxpayers of Duval county to try and save money for the both sides by try to intervene the internal affairs and resolve this matter once for all in order to save a house for the historic Springfield District.
-Josh
Careful now Josh... you will get attacked for wanting to save a historic building, be called a building hugger, and other things ;)
Would it save the city money to just pay the owner the amount it would take to take it down and then give it to a construction union school and let them take it on? or are there any programs that work with construction schools and old homes?
QuoteWHOA! Did I just saw a hint of regret showing there? -rubs my eyes again- Don't tell me I just read that...
-Josh
Who me? Naaaaaaahhhhhh!
QuoteCareful now Josh... you will get attacked for wanting to save a historic building, be called a building hugger, and other things
Quick, call the new CEO of the Y, we could ...........
Hey now, I did not invent that idea.. I just agree with it.
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 05:25:17 PM
Careful now Josh... you will get attacked for wanting to save a historic building, be called a building hugger, and other things ;)
They wouldn't dare. I am deaf and blind. They wouldn't hurt a poor disabled chap, wouldn't they?
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 21, 2011, 05:34:21 PM
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 05:25:17 PM
Careful now Josh... you will get attacked for wanting to save a historic building, be called a building hugger, and other things ;)
They wouldn't dare. I am deaf and blind. They wouldn't hurt a poor disabled chap, wouldn't they?
-Josh
Not they, buddy ;)
This home has built in cement planters under the windows. I would imagine original to the home. The entrance steps are magnificient. There are wrought iron grates for the breath holes in the crawl space. The house sets high and the base is SOLID brick. This home is on an alley, but is surrounded by vacant lots.
With pending legislation, new support from an organized community group focused on saving our houses (Preservation SOS,) ALL HOMES FORMALLY APPROVED FOR THE "NON-EXISTENT" FORMAL TRACK SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED.
I've asked for a list of approved (formal track,) homes and am told one does not exist. Gloria has painstakingly gone through past HPC meeting minutes to try to decipher which homes were approved for the track.
I really think I am going to lose it this time.
I have pictures but will only be able to post when I get home.
I made a point of taking a look at this building today. The real roof damage is over a semi-enclosed rear porch. Had the city done it's job per the ordinances and done a quick repair on the rear porch roof (as allowed by code), this roof would be fine. As it is, the gaping hole one sees simply lets water through to the open porch below. This issue could be fixed by simply demoing (like they used to at one time) part of the rear porch. I would just take the porch roof and leave the rest at this point.
The roof over the main house has some issues, but is mostly just a mismatch of shingles that look bad. The front porch looks bad until your realize that the structure, even with the porch ceiling hanging down (looks like it was pulled down rather than fell down), is supporting a fairly substantial dormer. Looking from the west, the dormer has not sagged so the structure must not be too bad. There are a few soffit issues (roof deck in this case as the soffits are exposed rafters).
The main house seems straight and is brick on the first floor. I could not tell if it was real brick construction or just vernier. The upper floor is old composite siding. Overall, it looks pretty good.
I, of course, could not go inside, but this house does not seem that bad and should at least be given a stay until it can properly be evaluated for mothballing.
This formal track, I believe, will end with lawsuits. Code presented houses to be put on this "formal track" and the HPC was mislead to get this done. Then code later says there was no such thing as a formal track and can not tell anyone how many houses were on this non-existing "formal track". It seems to me that if the houses were given demolition approvals via putting them on this "formal track", which does not exist, then those demolition approves were given illegally and the city needs to inform code to take every single one of those houses back to the HPC (at the very least) and then hope no one who had a house taken sees a lawyer who is smart enough to just go get the minutes of various public meetings and read the forums .
Sorry for the ignorant question, but I would like to know: Being that 'Historic' Springfield is designated a historic district/ Wouldn't be difficult for this person to demolish this house? Just curious
One would reason so , jc.. But if its on a formal track for demolition, I think it was somehow managed. That said, it is not down yet. Maybe enough outcry would carry some weight towards saving the building .
Quote from: strider on April 21, 2011, 06:16:05 PM
I made a point of taking a look at this building today. The real roof damage is over a semi-enclosed rear porch. Had the city done it's job per the ordinances and done a quick repair on the rear porch roof (as allowed by code), this roof would be fine. As it is, the gaping hole one sees simply lets water through to the open porch below. This issue could be fixed by simply demoing (like they used to at one time) part of the rear porch. I would just take the porch roof and leave the rest at this point.
The roof over the main house has some issues, but is mostly just a mismatch of shingles that look bad. The front porch looks bad until your realize that the structure, even with the porch ceiling hanging down (looks like it was pulled down rather than fell down), is supporting a fairly substantial dormer. Looking from the west, the dormer has not sagged so the structure must not be too bad. There are a few soffit issues (roof deck in this case as the soffits are exposed rafters).
The main house seems straight and is brick on the first floor. I could not tell if it was real brick construction or just vernier. The upper floor is old composite siding. Overall, it looks pretty good.
I, of course, could not go inside, but this house does not seem that bad and should at least be given a stay until it can properly be evaluated for mothballing.
This formal track, I believe, will end with lawsuits. Code presented houses to be put on this "formal track" and the HPC was mislead to get this done. Then code later says there was no such thing as a formal track and can not tell anyone how many houses were on this non-existing "formal track". It seems to me that if the houses were given demolition approvals via putting them on this "formal track", which does not exist, then those demolition approves were given illegally and the city needs to inform code to take every single one of those houses back to the HPC (at the very least) and then hope no one who had a house taken sees a lawyer who is smart enough to just go get the minutes of various public meetings and read the forums .
Bring on the friggin lawsuits!
-Josh
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 05:17:38 PM
Like the new avatar M-train :)
Ya know, although I can't say I'll be voting for him, I will admit I really like Mike Hogan's logo. It's almost, dare I say it, Obamaesque in it's simplicity with a twist of that ol' local J-ville charm. And I like seeing a downtown architectural landmark like the Main Street bridge plastered so damn proudly all over town (although it is kind of sad that you see it mostly in half vacant suburban strip malls). So, kudos to the graphic designer, but a big "whaaaa?" to the guy that said downtown should be no more of a priority than any other neighborhood in Jacksonville, and yet uses a downtown landmark in his logo.
Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on April 21, 2011, 07:21:54 PM
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 05:17:38 PM
Like the new avatar M-train :)
Ya know, although I can't say I'll be voting for him, I will admit I really like Mike Hogan's logo. It's almost, dare I say it, Obamaesque in it's simplicity with a twist of that ol' local J-ville charm. And I like seeing a downtown architectural landmark like the Main Street bridge plastered so damn proudly all over town (although it is kind of sad that you see it mostly in half vacant suburban strip malls). So, kudos to the graphic designer, but a big "whaaaa?" to the guy that said downtown should be no more of a priority than any other neighborhood in Jacksonville, and yet uses a downtown landmark in his logo.
I thought that same exact thing first time I saw his logo. This guy's gonna take a giant dump on downtown, yet uses it to get elected like he thinks it's something special. Kind of insulting really.
Easy to get this stopped... Anyone here remember "The People's Park," in San Francisco? Vacant do nothing lot and "we the people" created a cool park out of it. The police came and smashed through the barricades and "retook the real estate" but they lost the war! The point had been made and we suddenly got listened too. We need to know when this is scheduled to start, be there in numbers, form a human chain around it and sit our butts down and tell them "come and get us." Meanwhile have every MJ blogger, news eye, network, tv, newspaper etc... tipped off to "THE RIOT IN SPRINGFIELD!" They MIGHT ARREST a few, which will get slapped on the wrist and told to behave. The TV, Internet and Papers will see to it IT NEVER HAPPENS LIKE THAT AGAIN IN JACKSONVILLE... EVER!
Hell I'll even bring the flowers...
OCKLAWAHA
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/patterson1.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/patterson2.jpg)
Quote from: iloveionia on April 21, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
This home has built in cement planters under the windows.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/patterson3.jpg)
I would imagine original to the home. The entrance steps are magnificient. There are wrought iron grates for the breath holes in the crawl space. The house sets high and the base is SOLID brick. This home is on an alley, but is surrounded by vacant lots.
With pending legislation, new support from an organized community group focused on saving our houses (Preservation SOS,) ALL HOMES FORMALLY APPROVED FOR THE "NON-EXISTENT" FORMAL TRACK SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED.
I've asked for a list of approved (formal track,) homes and am told one does not exist. Gloria has painstakingly gone through past HPC meeting minutes to try to decipher which homes were approved for the track.
I really think I am going to lose it this time.
I have pictures but will only be able to post when I get home.
Has wonderful features. For a City so "broke" they damn sure are demolishing these houses at a horrifying rate.
What is the City afraid of - that somebody's gonna huff and puff and blow the thing down? It's brick fercryinoutloud. Do they not remember the whole point of that tale?!?!?
Oh, wait, judging from the various reports I've read on these houses, the only tale they ever remember is Chicken Little... >:(
Someone needs to do a Public Records request to COJ to found out exactly what the building was cited for.
I would love to create a partnership with few other people, then buy this Patterson Apartments property to restore, and then turn it into a rental for college students. That entire block can be tailored for FSCJ, UNF, and JU students :D
-Josh
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 22, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
Someone needs to do a Public Records request to COJ to found out exactly what the building was cited for.
Preservation SOS has that. Iloveionia can probably post it later.
Jacksonville. At some point they'll just hire a guy in a bulldozer to go around Springfield, with a guy in front of him pointing and shouting "THAT ONE... THAT ONE... THAT ONE, TOO..."
I keep thinking of the story my dad told me, of going back to see his grandmother's house a few years ago, to find that nothing was left except the front steps.
And to go see the building downtown that his dad was born in, only to find that it had been torn down.
Etc etc.
QuoteJacksonville. At some point they'll just hire a guy in a bulldozer to go around Springfield, with a guy in front of him pointing and shouting "THAT ONE... THAT ONE... THAT ONE, TOO..."
If the only real estate jobs we can create in this city are predicated around destruction. That's pretty sad!
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/342W10thStreet001.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/342W10thStreet002.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/342W10thStreet003.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/342W10thStreet004.jpg)
thanks moved.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 22, 2011, 05:21:22 PM
QuoteJacksonville. At some point they'll just hire a guy in a bulldozer to go around Springfield, with a guy in front of him pointing and shouting "THAT ONE... THAT ONE... THAT ONE, TOO..."
If the only real estate jobs we can create in this city are predicated around destruction. That's pretty sad!
+1000
Now, I dislike Ms. Lancester after reading the excerpt. She said the word 'ACTUALLY' at least 10 times.
More thoughts from me on this will come soon.
-Josh
Understand Josh. Ms. Lancaster is doing her job though. I would not WANT her job ,simply because like yourself , it is heart wrenching, for me personally, to see nice buildings such as this one that clearly is not anywhere close to needing demolition, and rather , needing relatively small repairs, BUT THE OWNER WILL NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. The owner would be who I would have a problem with. If you do not want to be responsible for a property you are going to end up with a bill from the city, for demolishing, SELL IT , or GIVE it to someone who will be responsible.
Prostitutes kicked in the back door and doing their business there? Wow, not in Springfield???
I want to see if someone can come with me to personally search and track down the actual owner to talk personally.
-Josh
For more information on this house also view here:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=534
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on April 21, 2011, 04:18:50 PM
Ok, so do we need to do? Do we have access to the engineer's report that says it cannot be saved? What is the reason for the demolition?
Kim
There was no engineer's report. This was not an emergency demolition. The Historic Planning Commission voted to have it demolished based on the testimony of Elaine Lancaster, code enforcement supervisor. See the minutes from the meeting.
Now that the commission has given its blessing, it appears as if there is nothing to do. No appeal can be made because it was put on the formal track a year ago. Code pulled a COA, but that was as a courtesy to Historic Planning.
It is a done deal. Apparently.
...along with all of the other homes on the formal track, and your guess is as good as ours as to exactly how many there are.
Could be dozens more. We just don't know.
Can all of us get together and PROTEST?
-Josh
Be cheaper to give the damn thing away... Maybe they could be made to see that? It will cost more to bring it down then the vacant lot is probably worth.
Hey bub? How'd you like a dayglow pink bulldozer and matching pickup truck? Paint balloons vs D9 Cat. (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TbI1ELPkELI/AAAAAAAAE1w/eQhMw5mEEVA/s800/Caterpillar%20D9.jpg)
I love how everyone avoids the protest angle... People you want this on the news, how much are you willing to sacrifice for RIGHT? IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME I'VE GOTTEN IN THE WAY OF A CAT! (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TbI71peKTAI/AAAAAAAAE2A/aYssOV1w0aI/s800/barge%20canal.JPG)
OCKLAWAHA :o
One issue is the hole in the roof at the rear of the building. This hole is mainly over the back porch, but also extends into the main section of the house. While this is not great, it is not a reason to demolish, either.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN1341-1.jpg)
That yellow wall is the exterior wall of the house, the upper rear porch.
Here is another view of the damage.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN1346-1.jpg)
This is the only significant damage I can find. The house is brick and study otherwise.
A picture of the bathroom where the roof damage is. The freakin' tile is still on the walls!!!
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN1342.jpg)
Picture through the front window.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DSCN1344-1.jpg)
I could repair the roof with provided materials.. with 3-4 people working on it, it would take a good day to do it.... would need onsite power . It is significant enough to warrant a condemned status but pretty easy to remedy.
- Would the owner allow it?
- Would the city allow it?
- Where would funding for the building materials come to do the repair.. I could chip in ,but im limited, unfortunately.
If that problem is not fixed , that alone really leans the building toward being demolished.
I wanted to add, that from that picture it almost appears that a tree or something really heavy hit the roof and it was never repaired.
This is why Preservation SOS, or a similar group, needs funds that are available at short notice. A microlending idea could work here - people lend $20 or $50 or whatever they can afford to a fund to save homes like this. Once the house is repaired, it is sold and the money goes back to the fund.
http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/neighborhood-places-their-hearts-patterson-apartments/53156
Quote from: Kiva on April 29, 2011, 10:36:29 PM
This is why Preservation SOS, or a similar group, needs funds that are available at short notice. A microlending idea could work here - people lend $20 or $50 or whatever they can afford to a fund to save homes like this. Once the house is repaired, it is sold and the money goes back to the fund.
That's a great idea.
I am in contact with the owner. Anyone interested in buying? I'm serious.
According to the owner the price is negotiable.
$6300 in back taxes plus current owed. Administrative liens to settle (should be $1500, but that is at the city's discretion) then a purchase price. He started at $12k and keeps saying negotiable
I think you may want to check with code enforcement on the accruing fines, for various violations on the property... Pretty sure they are much higher than $1,500.00. If my suspicion is true, and the owner has one working brain cell , they should give the place to anyone who would take it on. I definitely want to see the building saved, but I think the owner is delusional , asking for anything for the property. They should be willing to let it go. Or on top of all of that they will have a hefty bill for the demolition ,for which, by itself alone, they will never retrieve by selling a vacant lot.
Quote from: sheclown on April 30, 2011, 06:33:18 AM
Quote from: Kiva on April 29, 2011, 10:36:29 PM
This is why Preservation SOS, or a similar group, needs funds that are available at short notice. A microlending idea could work here - people lend $20 or $50 or whatever they can afford to a fund to save homes like this. Once the house is repaired, it is sold and the money goes back to the fund.
That's a great idea.
Does Gaffney have any lollipop money? I'd prefer that private money was raised and not taxpayer.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Timkin on May 04, 2011, 12:45:24 AM
I think you may want to check with code enforcement on the accruing fines, for various violations on the property... Pretty sure they are much higher than $1,500.00.
Typically if you buy a property with large fines, and agree to fix the problems, the city will let you pay $1500 instead of all the accrued fines.
Demolished using NSP1 funds.
No historic review. No Section 106 review. No input from the neighborhood. In fact, pleas from the neighborhood to STOP
Quote from: Timkin on April 21, 2011, 11:02:49 PM
Has wonderful features. For a City so "broke" they damn sure are demolishing these houses at a horrifying rate.
And now we know how such a "broke" city is able to demolish historic structures...they use FEDERAL FUNDS! And don't follow FEDERAL RULES for use of those funds...
What's the typical punishment for using federal funds while not following federal rules?
The City wil have to pay the money back and probably be fined and it would make it harder to get federal funds in the future.
Quote from: fsujax on October 18, 2013, 01:27:38 PM
The City wil have to pay the money back and probably be fined and it would make it harder to get federal funds in the future.
And who do you think will have to pay to pay back the Federal money? We the taxpayers! All the City had to do was mothball or use the Federal money to stabilize or restore. But instead they chose to use the funds to destroy.
^^Yup.
Here's some info sheclown found:
QuoteCFR › Title 36 › Chapter VIII › Part 800 › Subpart B › Section 800.5
36 CFR 800.5 - Assessment of adverse effects.
CFR
Updates
Authorities (U.S. Code)
§ 800.5
Assessment of adverse effects.
(a) Apply criteria of adverse effect. In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified historic properties, the agency official shall apply the criteria of adverse effect to historic properties within the area of potential effects. The agency official shall consider any views concerning such effects which have been provided by consulting parties and the public.
(1) Criteria of adverse effect. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.
(2) Examples of adverse effects. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties ( 36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;
(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location;
(iv) Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance;
(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features;
(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.
(3) Phased application of criteria. Where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or large land areas, or where access to properties is restricted, the agency official may use a phased process in applying the criteria of adverse effect consistent with phased identification and evaluation efforts conducted pursuant to § 800.4(b)(2).
(b) Finding of no adverse effect. The agency official, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, may propose a finding of no adverse effect when the undertaking's effects do not meet the criteria of paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed, such as the subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the SHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties ( 36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid adverse effects.
(c) Consulting party review. If the agency official proposes a finding of no adverse effect, the agency official shall notify all consulting parties of the finding and provide them with the documentation specified in § 800.11(e). The SHPO/THPO shall have 30 days from receipt to review the finding.
(1) Agreement with, or no objection to, finding. Unless the Council is reviewing the finding pursuant to papagraph (c)(3) of this section, the agency official may proceed after the close of the 30 day review period if the SHPO/THPO has agreed with the finding or has not provided a response, and no consulting party has objected. The agency official shall then carry out the undertaking in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Disagreement with finding. (i) If within the 30 day review period the SHPO/THPO or any consulting party notifies the agency official in writing that it disagrees with the finding and specifies the reasons for the disagreement in the notification, the agency official shall either consult with the party to resolve the disagreement, or request the Council to review the finding pursuant to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) of this section. The agency official shall include with such request the documentation specified in § 800.11(e). The agency official shall also concurrently notify all consulting parties that such a submission has been made and make the submission documentation available to the public.
(ii) If within the 30 day review period the Council provides the agency official and, if the Council determines the issue warrants it, the head of the agency, with a written opinion objecting to the finding, the agency shall then proceed according to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. A Council decision to provide its opinion to the head of an agency shall be guided by the criteria in appendix A to this part.
(iii) The agency official should seek the concurrence of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has made known to the agency official that it attaches religious and cultural significance to a historic property subject to the finding. If such Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization disagrees with the finding, it may within the 30 day review period specify the reasons for disagreeing with the finding and request the Council to review and object to the finding pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) Council review of findings. (i) When a finding is submitted to the Council pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the Council shall review the finding and provide the agency official and, if the Council determines the issue warrants it, the head of the agency with its opinion as to whether the adverse effect criteria have been correctly applied. A Council decision to provide its opinion to the head of an agency shall be guided by the criteria in appendix A to this part. The Council will provide its opinion within 15 days of receiving the documented finding from the agency official. The Council at its discretion may extend that time period for 15 days, in which case it shall notify the agency of such extension prior to the end of the initial 15 day period. If the Council does not respond within the applicable time period, the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 are fulfilled.
(ii) (A) The person to whom the Council addresses its opinion (the agency official or the head of the agency) shall take into account the Council's opinion in reaching a final decision on the finding.
(B) The person to whom the Council addresses its opinion (the agency official or the head of the agency) shall prepare a summary of the decision that contains the rationale for the decision and evidence of consideration of the Council's opinion, and provide it to the Council, the SHPO/THPO, and the consulting parties. The head of the agency may delegate his or her duties under this paragraph to the agency's senior policy official. If the agency official's initial finding will be revised, the agency official shall proceed in accordance with the revised finding. If the final decision of the agency is to affirm the initial finding of no adverse effect, once the summary of the decision has been sent to the Council, the SHPO/THPO, and the consulting parties, the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 are fulfilled.
(C) The Council shall retain a record of agency responses to Council opinions on their findings of no adverse effects. The Council shall make this information available to the public.
(d) Results of assessment— (1) No adverse effect. The agency official shall maintain a record of the finding and provide information on the finding to the public on request, consistent with the confidentiality provisions of § 800.11(c). Implementation of the undertaking in accordance with the finding as documented fulfills the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 and this part. If the agency official will not conduct the undertaking as proposed in the finding, the agency official shall reopen consultation under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Adverse effect. If an adverse effect is found, the agency official shall consult further to resolve the adverse effect pursuant to § 800.6.
QuoteSec. 5311.* Remedies for noncompliance with community development requirements[* Section 111 of the Act]
Features
Also in this Section:
(a) Notice and hearing by Secretary
(b) Referral of matters to Attorney General
(c) Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals
From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5311]
Notice and hearing; termination, reduction, or limitation of payments by Secretary
If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, shall--
terminate payments to the recipient under this chapter, or
reduce payments to the recipient under this chapter by an amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not expended in accordance with this chapter, or
limit the availability of payments under this chapter to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such failure to comply.
Referral of matters to Attorney General; institution of civil action by Attorney General
In lieu of, or in addition to, any action authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may, if he has reason to believe that a recipient has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.
Upon such a referral the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this chapter which was not expended in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals; filing of record of proceedings in court by Secretary; affirmance, etc., of findings of Secretary; exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court; review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari or certification
Any recipient which receives notice under subsection (a) of this section of the termination, reduction, or limitation of payments under this chapter may, within sixty days after receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action. The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
The Secretary shall file in the court record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection has been urged before the Secretary.
The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify his findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and he shall also file such modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and shall also file his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action.
Upon the filing of the record with the court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 18, 2013, 01:26:44 PM
What's the typical punishment for using federal funds while not following federal rules?
In Jacksonville it's immediate promotions. Resolutions of accomplishments. Lateral moves for exploitation in other areas. Appointment to boards. Nothing negative just all positive. The total crushing of the Public Trust.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 28, 2013, 10:38:40 PM
Here's some info sheclown found:
QuoteCFR › Title 36 › Chapter VIII › Part 800 › Subpart B › Section 800.5
36 CFR 800.5 - Assessment of adverse effects.
CFR
Updates
Authorities (U.S. Code)
§ 800.5
Assessment of adverse effects.
(a) Apply criteria of adverse effect. In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified historic properties, the agency official shall apply the criteria of adverse effect to historic properties within the area of potential effects. The agency official shall consider any views concerning such effects which have been provided by consulting parties and the public.
(1) Criteria of adverse effect. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.
(2) Examples of adverse effects. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties ( 36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;
(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location;
(iv) Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance;
(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features;
(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.
(3) Phased application of criteria. Where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or large land areas, or where access to properties is restricted, the agency official may use a phased process in applying the criteria of adverse effect consistent with phased identification and evaluation efforts conducted pursuant to § 800.4(b)(2).
(b) Finding of no adverse effect. The agency official, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, may propose a finding of no adverse effect when the undertaking's effects do not meet the criteria of paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed, such as the subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the SHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties ( 36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid adverse effects.
(c) Consulting party review. If the agency official proposes a finding of no adverse effect, the agency official shall notify all consulting parties of the finding and provide them with the documentation specified in § 800.11(e). The SHPO/THPO shall have 30 days from receipt to review the finding.
(1) Agreement with, or no objection to, finding. Unless the Council is reviewing the finding pursuant to papagraph (c)(3) of this section, the agency official may proceed after the close of the 30 day review period if the SHPO/THPO has agreed with the finding or has not provided a response, and no consulting party has objected. The agency official shall then carry out the undertaking in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Disagreement with finding. (i) If within the 30 day review period the SHPO/THPO or any consulting party notifies the agency official in writing that it disagrees with the finding and specifies the reasons for the disagreement in the notification, the agency official shall either consult with the party to resolve the disagreement, or request the Council to review the finding pursuant to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) of this section. The agency official shall include with such request the documentation specified in § 800.11(e). The agency official shall also concurrently notify all consulting parties that such a submission has been made and make the submission documentation available to the public.
(ii) If within the 30 day review period the Council provides the agency official and, if the Council determines the issue warrants it, the head of the agency, with a written opinion objecting to the finding, the agency shall then proceed according to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. A Council decision to provide its opinion to the head of an agency shall be guided by the criteria in appendix A to this part.
(iii) The agency official should seek the concurrence of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has made known to the agency official that it attaches religious and cultural significance to a historic property subject to the finding. If such Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization disagrees with the finding, it may within the 30 day review period specify the reasons for disagreeing with the finding and request the Council to review and object to the finding pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) Council review of findings. (i) When a finding is submitted to the Council pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the Council shall review the finding and provide the agency official and, if the Council determines the issue warrants it, the head of the agency with its opinion as to whether the adverse effect criteria have been correctly applied. A Council decision to provide its opinion to the head of an agency shall be guided by the criteria in appendix A to this part. The Council will provide its opinion within 15 days of receiving the documented finding from the agency official. The Council at its discretion may extend that time period for 15 days, in which case it shall notify the agency of such extension prior to the end of the initial 15 day period. If the Council does not respond within the applicable time period, the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 are fulfilled.
(ii) (A) The person to whom the Council addresses its opinion (the agency official or the head of the agency) shall take into account the Council's opinion in reaching a final decision on the finding.
(B) The person to whom the Council addresses its opinion (the agency official or the head of the agency) shall prepare a summary of the decision that contains the rationale for the decision and evidence of consideration of the Council's opinion, and provide it to the Council, the SHPO/THPO, and the consulting parties. The head of the agency may delegate his or her duties under this paragraph to the agency's senior policy official. If the agency official's initial finding will be revised, the agency official shall proceed in accordance with the revised finding. If the final decision of the agency is to affirm the initial finding of no adverse effect, once the summary of the decision has been sent to the Council, the SHPO/THPO, and the consulting parties, the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 are fulfilled.
(C) The Council shall retain a record of agency responses to Council opinions on their findings of no adverse effects. The Council shall make this information available to the public.
(d) Results of assessment— (1) No adverse effect. The agency official shall maintain a record of the finding and provide information on the finding to the public on request, consistent with the confidentiality provisions of § 800.11(c). Implementation of the undertaking in accordance with the finding as documented fulfills the agency official's responsibilities under section 106 and this part. If the agency official will not conduct the undertaking as proposed in the finding, the agency official shall reopen consultation under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Adverse effect. If an adverse effect is found, the agency official shall consult further to resolve the adverse effect pursuant to § 800.6.
QuoteSec. 5311.* Remedies for noncompliance with community development requirements[* Section 111 of the Act]
Features
Also in this Section:
(a) Notice and hearing by Secretary
(b) Referral of matters to Attorney General
(c) Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals
From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5311]
Notice and hearing; termination, reduction, or limitation of payments by Secretary
If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, shall--
terminate payments to the recipient under this chapter, or
reduce payments to the recipient under this chapter by an amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not expended in accordance with this chapter, or
limit the availability of payments under this chapter to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such failure to comply.
Referral of matters to Attorney General; institution of civil action by Attorney General
In lieu of, or in addition to, any action authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may, if he has reason to believe that a recipient has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.
Upon such a referral the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this chapter which was not expended in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals; filing of record of proceedings in court by Secretary; affirmance, etc., of findings of Secretary; exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court; review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari or certification
Any recipient which receives notice under subsection (a) of this section of the termination, reduction, or limitation of payments under this chapter may, within sixty days after receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action. The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
The Secretary shall file in the court record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection has been urged before the Secretary.
The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify his findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and he shall also file such modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and shall also file his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action.
Upon the filing of the record with the court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.
You guys are just awesome! Start your own law firm.
Adverse effects?
Where access to properties is restricted? How about that property that is adjacent to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative?
The Public TRUST just destroyed.
Anyone want to donate a buck to 2009-442? Seriously. The artificial reef TRUST fund. I will deliver it personally on your behalf at a city council meeting, Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting or a Downtown Experience Committee meeting that will and should be then advanced to the full Board of our new DIA. Still waiting for last months donation to show up in the minutes. Has anyone seen the minutes? it's all positive.
Hi, I've been lurking on these boards for a while. I have some question about all these teardowns (which I think is horrible, btw). The city I last lived in very rarely took down any abandoned property so I'm trying to understand more about what's going on here.
Who ends up owning all this vacant property that is all over the city? Does the state take the property by eminent domain when it tears down a house? Do they charge the property owner for the demolition if they refuse (or cannot) keep their property in a safe condition?
Thanks - sorry this is somewhat off topic.
The city will not use Fed dollars to raze historic homes.
www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-will-no-longer-use-federal-program-to/C68z73hZVE6pi2iKQWtilA.cspx
Quote from: I-10east on October 29, 2013, 10:13:46 AM
The city will not use Fed dollars to raze historic homes.
www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-will-no-longer-use-federal-program-to/C68z73hZVE6pi2iKQWtilA.cspx
Well, so after they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they are going to stop using those cookies improperly. OK, good so far. But. But what about all those ones they already did it on? What about the ones they were asked and the engineer reports supported that they be braced and they took down anyway? What about the rolling fines that contaminate rather help and what was the end game of those rolling fines? Justifying the demolitions that they were planning on using those federal funds on? This is bigger than a couple of houses. This is bigger than having to pay back a few million or so even.
Quote from: JayePorter on October 29, 2013, 09:38:32 AM
Hi, I've been lurking on these boards for a while. I have some question about all these teardowns (which I think is horrible, btw). The city I last lived in very rarely took down any abandoned property so I'm trying to understand more about what's going on here.
Who ends up owning all this vacant property that is all over the city? Does the state take the property by eminent domain when it tears down a house? Do they charge the property owner for the demolition if they refuse (or cannot) keep their property in a safe condition?
Thanks - sorry this is somewhat off topic.
Welcome JayePorter! The ownership of a parcel is not transferred to the City just because the City demolishes the structure. A demolition lien is placed on the property, and, more often than not, the owner stops maintaining the property (why not? There's no longer a structure on it, so no one cares, right?). Then complaints are made about the tall grass/weeds/trash/debris and when the owner does not clean it up, the City does it. And slaps another lien on the property - a Nuisance Lien. The City of Jacksonville has the ability to "take" a property for liens but they rarely do that. In fact, I'm not sure when that last happened, if at all.
^Good stuff. So who were the proud recipients of 2013-377? Ord. Appropriating $539,244 from nuisance abatement liens. To then remove property code violations city wide. Has to be positive.
PS4 land locked by a super foundation.
RAM dock is only opened when RAM is open. That can't be positive.
2013-384- An amendment that will give 24/7 Public Access to Hogans Creek a tributary to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative. That has to be positive.
PALMS FISH CAMP, PALMS FISH CAMP, PALMS FISH CAMP! A million bucks! We are so LOST.
In the meantime.
Visit Jacksonville- Our child molesters get pensions with Board approval and community support.
Ben -JCCI we need to kayak downtown before 2025 and let's start with Hogans Creek.
On a positive note anyone want to donate a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef TRUST fund? Seriously. I'll treat you to Chopstick Charley's and we will use Uber to get there. This is positive.
Quote from: Noone on October 30, 2013, 12:55:22 AM
^Good stuff. So who were the proud recipients of 2013-377? Ord. Appropriating $539,244 from nuisance abatement liens. To then remove property code violations city wide. Has to be positive.
QuotePS4 land locked by a super foundation.
RAM dock is only opened when RAM is open. That can't be positive.
2013-384- An amendment that will give 24/7 Public Access to Hogans Creek a tributary to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative. That has to be positive.
PALMS FISH CAMP, PALMS FISH CAMP, PALMS FISH CAMP! A million bucks! We are so LOST.
In the meantime.
Visit Jacksonville- Our child molesters get pensions with Board approval and community support.
Ben -JCCI we need to kayak downtown before 2025 and let's start with Hogans Creek.
On a positive note anyone want to donate a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef TRUST fund? Seriously. I'll treat you to Chopstick Charley's and we will use Uber to get there. This is positive.
Bill Type and Number: Ordinance 2013-377
Sponsor: Council President at the request of the Mayor:
Date of Introduction: June 11, 2013
Committee(s) of Reference: PHS; F; RCD
Date of Analysis: June 14, 2013
Type of Action: Appropriation
Bill Summary: The ordinance appropriates, pursuant to Ordinance 2007-286-E, $539,244.81 ($377,243.19 from Nuisance Abatement Liens, $63,940.39 from Interest Sanitary Assessment, $23,528.86 from Demolition Assessment, and $74,532.37 from Code Violation Fines) to the Nuisance Abatement Lien special Revenue Fund to provide funding for nuisance abatement contracting to remove property code violations city-wide in compliance with Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, as initiated by B.T. 13-071; provides for carryover of funds to Fiscal Year 2013-2014.
Background Information: The City of Jacksonville encourages property owners to correct outstanding code violations. Some owners fail to ensure compliance, often due to neglect. Common privately-owned property safety and maintenance code violations include nuisance overgrowth, accumulation of garbage, trash, rubbish and/or debris; failure to maintain residential and commercial minimum building standards; unsafe structures which require condemnation, and abandoned/junk vehicles. The purpose of the appropriation in this ordinance is to provide funding for nuisance abatement contracting to remove property code violations city-wide. The Nuisance Abatement Lien Special Revenue Fund, which previously supplemented general revenue funding for nuisance abatement contractual services, now serves as the primary funding source to support contractual services.
Policy Impact: Neighborhood Department/Municipal Code Compliance Division
Fiscal Impact: The ordinance appropriates $539,244.81.
Analyst: Jackson
You bring up a good point.
It seems as if we are going to have to dig around a bit.
The Birth of the ROLLING FINES. This little piece of legislation has done more to destroy the value of historic properties in Jacksonville than anything you can imagine. It has literally poisoned the lots and robbed Springfield of its opportunity to restore its condemned houses.
Quote
Bill Type and Number: Ordinance 2007 - 286
Sponsor: Council Member Davis
Date of Introduction: March 13, 2007
Committee(s) of Reference: F, TEUS, A
Date of Analysis: March 16, 2007
Type of Action: Amends various sections of Chapter 518, Ordinance Code
Bill Summary: The bill makes a number of changes in Part 2 of Chapter 518 (Property Safety & Maintenance Code) of the City's Ordinance Code. Major changes are:
Upgrades the violation from a Class C to a Class E, a new class, and makes the offense a separate offense each day, rather than one per every 15-day period.
Changes from 15 days to 10 days the period to refer matter to a Board or Special Master.
If Board or Special Master orders correction, the City will immediately move to clean up the property in violation. Currently, the City has option to do so or refer the case to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board.
Adds to the City's possible collection costs such specific costs as attorneys, court fees and collection agency fees.
Collected funds are to be deposited into a new Nuisance Abatement Lien Special Revenue Fund.
Creates a new class of offenses, Class E with a fine of $350 and a cost of $5, a total of $355.
Establishes a Nuisance Abatement Lien Special Revenue Fund as a permanent Housing & Neighborhoods Department fund. Fund use is limited to paying for the abatement of nuisances.
Policy Impact Area: Nuisance Abatement Liens
Fiscal Impact: Undetermined, but the impact of the changes should result in an increased flow of fine payments, both in numbers of payments and in the dollar value of the payment.
Analyst: Weiss
thank you Noone.
Noone,
There is a new "Code Enforcement Revolving Fund" of 750k.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/budget/fy13-14-finalapprovedbudgetsummary.aspx
page 93.
Is this what the ordinance you referenced funds?
Quote from: Noone on October 30, 2013, 12:55:22 AM
On a positive note anyone want to donate a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef TRUST fund? Seriously. I'll treat you to Chopstick Charley's and we will use Uber to get there. This is positive.
Noone, PM me with some info on this.
^Done.
Sheclown- I saw $750,000. I'm sure someone else will provide a more detailed follow-up.
I was looking for an entry for 2009-442. Didn't see anything. I'll be following up on that.
The issue of rolling fines deserves it's own thread. Also, they stem from section 91 in the ordinance code, not 518.