(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/a86f430d.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/b19dd45b.jpg)
I had the delightful pleasure to get inside this house this morning.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/61854256.jpg)
Billy Motes invited to take a look at this gorgeous place -- a real hidden gem. Outside all you can see is a green house with fire damage, but wait until you see inside!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/cb378d69.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/54061428.jpg)
The staircase is intact. It is unusual and ornate.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/6c248e2b.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/5b75f30f.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/69bac6b7.jpg)
tiny corner trim and fancy plinth blocks indicate its age...1890s
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/5c0cbc00.jpg)
check out the fancy transom divided light.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/2da30a89.jpg)
All of the door and window trim have flower carvings in them:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/ce77a826.jpg)
And the picture rail has flower patterned carved in it as well
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/136a01fb.jpg)
The house has sustained some fire damage: however, it seems contained to superficial charring. The framing looks solid, there is no evidence of roof leak (miracle that is!) and the floors are solid.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/b32bc9af.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/c65c6194.jpg)
In fact, the floor boards are surprisingly undamaged by termites. They are the wider boards, probably a full three inch, as was common in the older houses.
At one time, this house was a full 5000 square feet.
Plans for the future?
We, Preservation SOS, are going to help Billy Motes get a COA for mothballing this house. He plans on renovating it over the course of the next couple of years. Mothballing will protect this house from a certain death-by-bulldozer.
We are very excited about this house, and about Mr. Mote's plans to save it.
She is a beauty
...and by the way, did I mention there are five fireplaces?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/795c2860.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/043a3b4b.jpg)
Many people (as our SOS sign was on this property many months ago) told me this house should be torn down and why were we trying to save it?
One should not judge a book by its cover. This house, though needing attention on the outside is gorgeous AND old. I personally have not see this kind of woodwork in any house currently. I am sure someone has, but doubtful it is common.
Our sole mission is to "save the houses."
Save the houses.
Save the houses.
Save the houses.
I live in the present and look towards the future. The past is only preventative when trying to move forward.
save the houses
Quote from: iloveionia on January 22, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
I personally have not see this kind of woodwork in any house currently. I am sure someone has, but doubtful it is common.
Just an FYI: In the old days of millwork everything was done by hand (of course), so the 'ornate' work: Plinth Blocks, Corner Blocks, Rosettes, etc.. were used in 'production' homes due to the limited skills of the installers and they allowed them to use straight cuts for all the moulding terminations. The homes with the coped miters and the broken pediment heads, etc.. were truly the homes that were trimmed out by craftsmen. The funny thing is today, we can charge more to use the blocks even though it's a much simpler install.
Another thing - anyone can flat miter a piece of trim using a compound miter saw, but only a true woodworker will still use coped miteres - you can't really tell with anything that has a field finish - paint or stain, but if you ever want a furniture grade, prefinished moulding installed in your home or business - trust me, pay for the talent - there's a huge difference.
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
The House is amazing , as is the features.
This house is going to be a much larger undertaking than the Walnut Court house. The fire damage is extensive. Much of the siding was lost in the fire; some has been replaced (but badly); in other areas the house has been left open to the elements for two years.
What would Mr. Motes be required to do immediately in order to properly mothball this house?
Billy is prepared to restore the house.
With a mothball COA Billy will mothball his house: we are just moral and knowledge support.
Have you been inside the house? You should talk with Gloria as she HAS been inside.
Apprearances are not what they seem.
For mothballing Billy's house: replace the missing siding (with siding or cut to fit plywood,) board the windows, close in the crawlspace, cut back overgrown shrubs, prime entire house, repair or overlay front porch floor as needed, repair/overlay back deck floor, replace back patio joist, install motion solar lights, roof leak free, verify stability of front porch bracing, add minor landscaping. We also recommended removing the chainlink fence at the front.
While I may not have the experience of some, this is a gorgeous house, as that interior trim is remarkable. And the multiple fireplaces? Wow.
Save the houses.
The homeowner deeply desires to do right thing for this house. He has the ability to do so. We are here to support him to save the house.
What is interesting is that the best way to save a house is to use it. While many did not like the Billy Moat's of the world, he found uses for these houses when very often no one else would even try. Cut up into rooms or not, the house was ten times safer with him using it than it is now. Billy Moats is not the horror some make him out to be and the truth is, he loves his houses.
This house is in amazingly in good condition considering the fire. The fire actually did relativity little damage and the roof does not leak. While the outside looks really bad, the exterior walls can e seal up easily enough and the house will not be all that bad to mothball.
The trim in this house dates it to be one of the oldest in the community. The picture mold is very unique and the hand carving on the corner blocks indicates a house built with care and craftsmanship that is very rare today.
It not only should be saved, it MUST be saved.
So often criticism surrounds those who would favor saving a beautiful structure over bulldozing it or burning it.
I get it all the time. I will never give up
Yes, I have been inside the house, with two different general contractors who have a lot of experience with historic properties. I wanted to buy it and restore it myself, but it was too much work for me.
I certainly hope the owner does have the ability to restore it.
Quote from: strider on January 22, 2012, 05:19:54 PM
What is interesting is that the best way to save a house is to use it. While many did not like the Billy Moat's of the world, he found uses for these houses when very often no one else would even try. Cut up into rooms or not, the house was ten times safer with him using it than it is now. Billy Moats is not the horror some make him out to be and the truth is, he loves his houses.
This. I've always said this. Get the houses into people's hands who WANT them & can take care of them, and away from those individuals/agencies who let them go to hell. And I'm not talking about this house in particular. If it has a good owner, then fine. I just mean all the houses in Springfield that have been neglected. And do it fast & furious.
Auction them to individuals who intend to live in them (not ones trying to make a buck). Auctions auctions auctions. I love what you guys do & you deserve all the praise in the world, but this is a BIG problem that a small organization made up of only a couple of determined individuals who are only able to tackle a few of these properties at a time cannot fix alone.
Follow their lead: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/brisk_sales_of_abandoned_prope.html
You are preaching to the choir.
Having personally made several attempts to contact absentee owners of vacant homes it is beyond a challenge. I don't know where these people hide or why they ignore their responsibility to their house and to the neighborhood.
If the city would grow some balls, take the houses that have been forgotten and give folks a chance to live the American Dream, it would be a win-win all around.
We'd have neighbors and commerce.
But that makes sense.
And I've learned from my comings and goings, not much makes sense in Jacksonville, particularly in Springfield and downtown.
We got mothballing to reality.
Maybe we can get auctions into reality too.
You're right on. The problem, as usual, is Jacksonville. The individuals who let them get to this point & who you can't find now, while a problem, are secondary.
I've always said that Springfield's biggest problem isn't the people, it isn't the determination of the residents, it isn't even the houses or the blight. It's the city the neighborhood is in.
In the case of this house, the condition is not relevant.
Well, except to code enforcement who think anything upright and unoccupied in Springfield should come down.
The owner wishes to fix the property and has fixed other properties in Springfield.
Since I do not know any history with the owner, and frankly don't care, I am elated that this house will be able to have life breathed into it.
When we talked he reminisced about the sidewalks with their hex stones, the granite curbs, and the brick streets. And the houses lost, my goodness. This owner was born in Springfield and remembers much and deeply saddened by Springfield's losses.
Mothballing is meant to protect the homes while an owner has adequate and fair time to renovate/restore; and this he will do.
I will not judge past actions, deeds, however anyone wishes to call it.
I simply care about saving the houses.
That's it. Save the houses.
Quote from: iloveionia on January 22, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
You are preaching to the choir.
Having personally made several attempts to contact absentee owners of vacant homes it is beyond a challenge. I don't know where these people hide or why they ignore their responsibility to their house and to the neighborhood.
If the city would grow some balls, take the houses that have been forgotten and give folks a chance to live the American Dream, it would be a win-win all around.
We'd have neighbors and commerce.
But that makes sense.
And I've learned from my comings and goings, not much makes sense in Jacksonville, particularly in Springfield and downtown.
We got mothballing to reality.
Maybe we can get auctions into reality too.
^^ Not just the houses .. all historic properties that have fallen into disrepair. Seems really strange.. Most home or building owners are ( were always ) required to maintain their home or building and some were/ are not. Why is this the case with this City?
IT NEEDS to change. I agree especially with the part that the City needs to grow a pair.. It also needs to not give preferential treatment to some owners as it clearly has through the years.
In 1986:
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1153rdEast--1985.jpg)
(Thanks Chris Farley)
What Billy's house could look like --
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/gould.jpg)
Gould House 223 W. 4th
(photo: Chris Farley)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/a86f430d.jpg)
Can you see it?
http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1621&start=10
Rumor has it that this is one of the houses which has already been funded for demolition.
115 East 3rd Street
6/24/09 HPC Commission approved property to be placed on Formal Track for demolition.
(113/115 same house)
I now strongly believe they are sister houses, look at the 1985 photo, even the windows are 2 over 2 as in the Gould. The porch jutting is the same. I also think the east side of the house may have been added later, it throws off the balance of the house. I am going to try and find out. I think a very strong argument could be made for replacing the gingerbread and balustrades to match the Gould. I do not think we shall loose this house, but Motes needs also to step up to the plate, and put some skin into this game, because restored this house is truly a treasure. There are really three ways to demolish a house, you pull it down, you leave it until it almost falls and has to be taken down or you save it and change the facade completely. That is why HPC discussions on windows and doors are important, this house needs its 2 by 2 windows with correct mullions back also. If it is to be saved there has to be a promise that it will be put back, in that way the argument is much stronger.
What should he do ? Donate it to Andrew Macris?
I believe Billy Motes will do right by this house. I happen to like the man.
BUT it does not necessarily lie with him.
Window replacement requires a COA and approval. The end determination lies with them.
It should be important to mention too that HPC approved this home for demolition: approved via that non-existent formal track for demolition. We have a lot of work ahead.
I believe firmly, like with Walnut Court, that code will have zero claim of proof that this house is in danger of falling. I dislike harping on the past, but unfortunately we have to fix harm that has been done, how on earth can you approve something to be demolished without ever having seen it with your own eyes? And worse? Put all your cards with code enforcement who are charged with safety, not history and significance!!!
Save the houses. That's it.
Thank God for an owner who is not absent.
You know I have not posted on this board for a couple of years until today. I cannot believe what has been said in the last two posts. In spite of this I intend to put a paper together on the house, and talk to Joel this afternoon. I thought the past did not matter and it is not a matter of liking the owner it is a matter of saving the house. I do not care about the past action that said to demolish the house, its time is to move forward.
Come on.
Really?
You should re-read my post.
In your post you put Motes on check, folks on page one all but called him scum. I simply stated I liked him, I felt he deserved at least that.
The past matters here as this house was approved by HPC for demolition via the formal track. And if we can't get the mothball COA approved, we will not be able to save it. Code has the go-ahead to demolish and they will. God help us if the bulldozer shows up around the corner. MCCD reads metrojacksonville, I am sure they are scrambling to get the final paperwork in order to take down the house. Jason Teal says that HPC can not reverse their decision no matter how long ago it was, no matter how they feel now. Call him, email him, ask him. It's the unfortunate truth.
Now while many of us can agree (including you and I) that this is a house to save and fight for, it may not matter. The damage has been done. Did Billy have a responsibility as a homeowner to make this home habitable? Of course. But like many others, he is a victim too: of code enforcement.
Two ways to save the house: Mothball COA or owner deeds the house away. That's it. And that is only part way there, but it will keep the dozers at bay.
I want you to call Joel, I want you to speak for the house. BUT understand that that alone will not save the house. HPC approved it for demolition. Period. Kim Scott agreed to a "stay of execution" on condemened homes while Joel's office sent out mothball information letters, but that time is at it's expiration date. But no matter, what we knew all along that we were likely to lose all of the formal track homes. Kim Scott has the power to rescind homes on the formal track. She's the only one.
I don't like any of this: losing homes. And while I do not have as much experience in Springfield as you do Chris, I am not talking out of my ass either. I know what's up. Even at 3,000 miles away I am more involved than most of full time Springfielders.
I and the dedicated folks at PSOS will do everything possible to save this house. I hope more folks like yourself will support this homes journey to saving as well. Thank you for talking to Joel. I would encourage you to bring your historical information to the HPC meeting where the COA for Billy's house will be heard.
I go back again: books should not be judged by their covers. Billy's house was, and this is a house that was misjudged as the pictures show.
Quote from: chris farley on January 25, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
You know I have not posted on this board for a couple of years until today. I cannot believe what has been said in the last two posts. In spite of this I intend to put a paper together on the house, and talk to Joel this afternoon. I thought the past did not matter and it is not a matter of liking the owner it is a matter of saving the house. I do not care about the past action that said to demolish the house, its time is to move forward.
The past often, if not always, helps determine the future. In this case, a group from the community took MCCD to shut down this house and make sure it was condemned. Then, as usual, MCCD did what they do best - hinder rather than help in any way. Yes, this is the past, but it lead to a future approval for demolition of a great house. Yes, that is also the past, but it is very possibly going to lead to the future loss of this house. And many more.
We can't change the past, but by knowing it, we can learn from it.
And hopefully, though this is Jacksonville, be smart enough to not let the past sins dictate that future.
And now instead of making any further points about the past, which are informative, but which we unfortunately can't change, let's all stop annoying each other and work together to save the house.
If a mothballing COA has been filed already, which I think it has, doesn't that stop MCCD from demo-ing the house until the COA is decided? If not, we really need to address that. Once a Mothball COA is applied for, it should pull the plug on demo.
Quite frankly Debbie I have not had and do not intend to have any attempt at annoying anyone. Read my blogs, when Gloria posted the inside of that house I knew it was old but had not realized how old. All I have tried to do is show research that may have an impact on saving the structure, but the retorts have been negative and I do not understand why, unless it is "do not rain on my parade". I have not bad mouthed anyone just said lets get on with it. I do intend to get on with the history and have already made a couple of approaches to try to prevent demolition. I intend to keep doing it, if efforts are rejected, sobeit.
save the houses
Save the houses.
However it's done, by whomever.
Just save the houses.
Every last one of them.
As a community, Springfield, and while it was often by in-action, sold our soul to a local organization ten years ago and through that action, could have lost the entire community. Now, some are starting to realize that and are fighting the good fight. But we all have to realize that ten years ago when we sold our soul, we gave up the right to pick and choose which house to try to save. We now have lost so many that every single house must be fought for and saved regardless of the cost. It is the only way to save the soul of the community.
Save the houses, every last one of them.
Absolutely. Save the houses.
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
John P doesn't get it. He's like the City. It's not about the owners, past or present, it's about the houses. Save the houses.
A beautiful illustration of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Keep kissing the frogs, or dragons, or ogres...whatever. Just save the houses.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
Perhaps you should not read more into a statement than is there. The statement went to the character of the owner, and did not involve the structure or it's future. My verification of JohnP's question was intended to enlighten some about whom they are dealing with. I believe that IS a valuble insight. I (and I'm sure whoever JohnP is) wish you all the best in this endeavor. But ignoring facts does no one any good.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
It seems to me like JohnP is simply saying to take the (apparently new-found) sincerity of the owner with a grain of salt, not advocating for the destruction of a historic structure - particularly evident since he claims to have attempted purchasing the house.
Anyway, when was the fire? Is there something restricting the owner from doing the renovations right now (or at some point since the fire)? Does he have to go through the mothballing process first before he can start fixing the house? Is there something restricting his ability to do the fixes that would be required in order to mothball the house?
I don't know much about the process, so I am curious. One would think if the owner wants to fix the house, he would be able to.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on January 27, 2012, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
It seems to me like JohnP is simply saying to take the (apparently new-found) sincerity of the owner with a grain of salt, not advocating for the destruction of a historic structure - particularly evident since he claims to have attempted purchasing the house.
Anyway, when was the fire? Is there something restricting the owner from doing the renovations right now (or at some point since the fire)? Does he have to go through the mothballing process first before he can start fixing the house? Is there something restricting his ability to do the fixes that would be required in order to mothball the house?
I don't know much about the process, so I am curious. One would think if the owner wants to fix the house, he would be able to.
The mothballing process will allow him to fix up the house or sell it or whatever he chooses to do. It will give him three years provided he addresses issues such as blight, safety, security. If he monitors the house and keeps watch over it, the city will keep code enforcement from fining him or tearing down his house.
It is a win/win. When he has finished doing what HPC will no doubt require, it will no longer be a blight to the neighborhood. And while not lived in, it will be well on its way to restoration with its new lease on life.
Quote from: sheclown on January 27, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
The mothballing process will allow him to fix up the house or sell it or whatever he chooses to do. It will give him three years provided he addresses issues such as blight, safety, security. If he monitors the house and keeps watch over it, the city will keep code enforcement from fining him or tearing down his house.
It is a win/win. When he has finished doing what HPC will no doubt require, it will no longer be a blight to the neighborhood. And while not lived in, it will be well on its way to restoration with its new lease on life.
So it would b e theoretically possible for the owner to get a contractor there next week to start renovating the place, but the hold-up is basically financing? My question is basically: if the owner has the desire to do this restoration, why isn't it being done? Is it a money issue, or is there some regulatory reason why this work can't be done?
Of course, PJs. Throughout the entire process an owner can do more than merely mothball. Mothball is just a safety net. I don't know the owner's finances. He doesn't need to prove financial hardship to mothball. The economy, the state of financing, the state of ...well...real estate takes certain things for granted.
He may only need to mothball for 6 months or it may take him years and years to renovate. Don't know.
Mothballing puts in place a mechanism for accountability for these old houses, protection from code enforcement's actions, and in the meantime securing the structure against further deterioration, vandalism, and the eyesore associated with blighted structures.
And mostly, demolition by bulldozers. We can't forget that a demolition certificate of appropriateness was granted on this house in 2009, something that cannot be appealed at this point. Code has permission to tear it down, anytime, except now, it is under mothball protection.
PSOS is doing the right thing to save the house even though they have to deal with this POS. They must act on faith to save the house. I give it a .000000001% chance that he will restore it. But hopefully, with the house mothballed, he will sell.
Quote from: Sigma on January 27, 2012, 06:52:19 PMThey must act on faith to save the house.
And there you have it.
It is not about the person, it is about the houses.
Thank you. Spot on.
Save the houses.
Every last one of them.
I found the minutes to the HPC meeting where this house was approved for the formal track by the commissioners.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/113%20East%203rd%20Street/2012-01-28-1152-17-1.jpg)
Of interest in this first page dealing with this house (half way down on the first column of page 6) is the fact that Joel refers to the owner as "she" and "she had been taken advantage of by the investor" and this is justification for "trying to get this approved for demolition"
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/113%20East%203rd%20Street/2012-01-28-1153-00-1.jpg)
Mr. Case asks "Is there any reason why this house cannot be repaired before it gets that--" and Ms. Lancaster responds "If you are looking at the pictures, it's been totally gutted and fired damaged"
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/cb378d69.jpg)
(that would be plaster on those walls)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/113%20East%203rd%20Street/2012-01-28-1153-24-1.jpg)
This is where Louise has concerns that the house is going to fall on something.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/113%20East%203rd%20Street/2012-01-28-1153-51-1.jpg)
This is an interesting page. There is where Ms. Lancaster states "so they're making arrangements, if the City will be the one doing the demolition, to make--because the City as a policy, if you come within six months of a demolition through the tax collector and all, they set up a payment plan you so you're not having to come out with all that money at one time. And that's their intent with this structure because they said they can't afford it."
And this is where (after some confusion about the address) they vote to put this on the formal track.
So, I'm totally confused when I read these because while I was meeting with Billy Motes, he told me how he wanted to save the house and the minutes refer to the owner as "she."
So, I find out by looking at the property appraiser's data base that the house was sold by Billy Motes to Lena Castro in 2007. Lena then campaigned for its demolition and sold it back to Billy Motes in August of 2009.
Billy has no idea that this is on the formal track.
This is the trial -- where sworn evidence was given against the structural stability of the house.
It is where the future was determined for this place.
The policies of 2009 have greatly determined the mess we are in today.
The formal track needs to be rescinded. Any houses put on there need to be pulled off. The decisions were careless by everyone concerned.
Code enforcement officers gave false testimony -- clearly the house is not gutted.
And according to the Office of General Council, these decisions are not eligible to be appealed -- too much time went by.
Remember how we begged for Patterson Apartments, but could do nothing because it was on the formal track?
And it came down.
Yes, 113 E. 3rd has a chance because of mothballing. What about the others?
Quote from: sheclown on January 28, 2012, 03:24:04 PM
The policies of 2009 have greatly determined the mess we are in today.
The formal track needs to be rescinded. Any houses put on there need to be pulled off. The decisions were careless by everyone concerned.
Agree.
Quote from: NotNow on January 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
Perhaps you should not read more into a statement than is there. The statement went to the character of the owner, and did not involve the structure or it's future. My verification of JohnP's question was intended to enlighten some about whom they are dealing with. I believe that IS a valuble insight. I (and I'm sure whoever JohnP is) wish you all the best in this endeavor. But ignoring facts does no one any good.
I only read what you wrote. If that's an issue, it seems the problem doesn't sit with me.
What the owner did two decades ago has nothing to do with whether the structure should be demolished today.
Owners come and go.
:o
You have to ask yourself, just who is the POS? The man who wants to mothball and save his house, or the woman who bought it, campaigned to put it on the formal track, and then sold it back to him?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2012, 11:54:37 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
Perhaps you should not read more into a statement than is there. The statement went to the character of the owner, and did not involve the structure or it's future. My verification of JohnP's question was intended to enlighten some about whom they are dealing with. I believe that IS a valuble insight. I (and I'm sure whoever JohnP is) wish you all the best in this endeavor. But ignoring facts does no one any good.
I only read what you wrote.
Clearly not. Doesn't appear that John P or Notnow said anything advocating for "destroying another historic structure," explicitly or implicitly.
Quote from: sheclown on January 29, 2012, 08:39:33 AM
You have to ask yourself, just who is the POS? The man who wants to mothball and save his house, or the woman who bought it, campaigned to put it on the formal track, and then sold it back to him?
Perhaps neither. Maybe both.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on January 30, 2012, 10:49:53 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 28, 2012, 11:54:37 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 27, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 22, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: John P on January 22, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.
Yep. Same POS.
Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.
Great insight, guys. Very helpful.
Perhaps you should not read more into a statement than is there. The statement went to the character of the owner, and did not involve the structure or it's future. My verification of JohnP's question was intended to enlighten some about whom they are dealing with. I believe that IS a valuble insight. I (and I'm sure whoever JohnP is) wish you all the best in this endeavor. But ignoring facts does no one any good.
I only read what you wrote.
Clearly not. Doesn't appear that John P or Notnow said anything advocating for "destroying another historic structure," explicitly or implicitly.
Quote from: sheclown on January 29, 2012, 08:39:33 AM
You have to ask yourself, just who is the POS? The man who wants to mothball and save his house, or the woman who bought it, campaigned to put it on the formal track, and then sold it back to him?
Perhaps neither. Maybe both.
Oh hogwash. They wrote what they wrote, it's all there in black and what.
People can read for themselves, I'm not sure what you're expecting to accomplish with your inaccurate editorializing.
QuoteFlorida Times Union, January 24th 1984
By Marlene Sokol, Staff Writer
Springfield residents fighting to save their neighorhood’s historic buildings from demolition and decay, seem to have lost the latest battle: an attempt to save the 29, 2nd Street East, home of former Mayor Frank C. Whitehead. The turn-of-the-century, prairie-style home probably will be demolished tomorrow, wrecker Gene Burkhalter said yesterday. Members of Springfield Preservation and Restoration (SPAR) learned last week that the house was to be razed to make room for an automotive parts warehouse.
The Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission told SPAR members that they had no legal right to protect the house and that the property was zoned for commercial use. Burkhalter gave the group four days to find someone willing to pay $7,500 -- income he hoped to earn by selling parts of the house for salvage -- and move the house within 30 days.
SPAR members Cindy Miles and Marcy McCann said they have shown the house to several potential movers over the weekend, but no one has agreed to take it off Burkhalter’s hands. “There was one group of people who were interested, but they could not get that kind of money together fast enough.â€
Though SPAR members are not blaming Burkhalter or William Catlin, the automotive dealer who now owns the property, the members are considering measures to prevent such demolitions in the future. One, Ms. Miles said, would be to ask the city’s Building and Zoning Division -- which issues demolition permits -- to notify the Jacksonville Landmarks Commmission when they receive a request to raze a historic building.
But Burkhalter, a former member of the landmarks commission, said the process should begin much earlier. “These people had months and months to worry about this house, all the time it was boarded up†Burkhalter said. “The time to look for an owner and a mover was months ago, not this late in the process. Ms Miles said cushioning historic buildings in advance from possible demolition would be difficult, because most are privately owned and change hands frequently. “Because you’re dealing with private property and private property rights, you really can’t do anything†she said.
Prospects look dim for the Second Street house, Ms. Miles said, even with the 24 hour grace period. “but we can always hope,†she said.
The three photographs above tell the final story. Someone did step up: Mr. Billy Motes. The topmost photo shows the house in its heyday, beautifully standing at 2nd East and Main, facing downtown. The middle one, taken by Jim Gentile, shows the house on the move, as it turned off of 2nd onto Hubbard - the Fletcher House is on the left. The bottom photo shows the house as it is today. We do not know why but Mr. Motes had the house put backwards on the lot. The front of the house now faces inward or north and the back wall is on 3rd street. Its new address is 1311 Hubbard.
reprinted from the SHEC newsletter September 2011
Just sayin'
Wow thats an interesting tidbit of history. I never realized that house was backwards on the lot until just now when I looked it up on Google Street View...how could I have missed it.
I find it interesting the commissioners keep saying "it's hard without a real report" and Elaine Lancaster saying they didn't do a structural report on any of the houses she's bringing that day, but somehow she is able to say the wall is bulging and the house may fall down. Even though if you ask her...and I did...personally...at a SPAR meeting...if she and those at MCCD are structural engineers, and she said no.
I love it when ChrisGator says "oh hogwash!"
I know a few commercial structures have had roofs fall in, but aside from the Walnut Street ruins (no roof) that collapsed on to the sidewalk during the 2004 Hurricane season, has Springfield ever had a house randomly fall over?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 30, 2012, 04:39:05 PM
Oh hogwash. They wrote what they wrote, it's all there in black and what.
People can read for themselves, I'm not sure what you're expecting to accomplish with your inaccurate editorializing.
LOL.
Quote from: aubureck on January 31, 2012, 01:01:16 PM
Wow thats an interesting tidbit of history. I never realized that house was backwards on the lot until just now when I looked it up on Google Street View...how could I have missed it.
So its the big brick one next door? They moved that thing?!? Whew! Any reason they put it backwards? Kris Kross wasn't even popular yet.
My understanding has been that the owner wanted it turned around but the moving company did not or could not do it for some reason so there is sits.
Still much better than just tearing the thing down. It is a great house that is still here and in decent shape because t has been used since it got moved.
Think of the fact that if code had not gotten so uppity and actually tried to help people, 113/115 E 3rd would also be in much better shape today.
I realized a couple of days ago the SHEC Sampler from Sep 2011 had photos of the house in its original location on 2nd and Main, of it in motion, and in its present location...absolutely amazing!
Quote from: Demosthenes on February 01, 2012, 09:50:38 AM
I know a few commercial structures have had roofs fall in, but aside from the Walnut Street ruins (no roof) that collapsed on to the sidewalk during the 2004 Hurricane season, has Springfield ever had a house randomly fall over?
Only with the help of a bulldozer :(
Quote from: DemosthenesI know a few commercial structures have had roofs fall in, but aside from the Walnut Street ruins (no roof) that collapsed on to the sidewalk during the 2004 Hurricane season, has Springfield ever had a house randomly fall over?
As Timkin said, only with the help of a bulldozer. I've lived here for well over 10 years and have never heard of or learned of any structure collapsing. No house has ever fallen down, even the ones that code claims to be a public safety issue.
The issue with the building you referenced on Walnut street, (which was at the corner of 6th and Walnut) the old linen laundry place...it had no roof for many, many years (fire took care of that) there were massive cracks in the remainder of what was left of the outer brick walls that had huge steel frame windows. The cracks were never repaired, the walls were never stabilized until after the strong wind/rain caused the collapse of the wall along Walnut street. It was only after that happened, that the owner decided to make an effort to stabilize the wall along 6th street. In fact, he had large metal poles placed and the sidewalks closed/fenced and it remained like that for many months. Then he had someone placing concrete blocks as a replacement to the wall that had fallen. Of course, there was no permit, and the city stopped the work which was never completed. Eventually the fencing was removed, but the supports remained in place, until the city finally decided to take it all down.
I just thought I'd add my two cents now, as I can attest to the fact that yes indeed structures have collapsed in Springfield. While I don't know the age of the building and it was not a "house" a two story garage/apartment somehow built on the lot line collapsed early Christmas morning in I believe 2005! Gave me quite a shock as it was diagonally across the back alley from my home! I was delighted to see it go frankly, my Christmas present!
The "family" living there then slowly and aggravatingly cleared the lot and attempted a rebuild over the course of many months/years but not to code and it was eventually demolished. That family is gone and the house was sold/maybe foreclosed and is now being restored! The bogus replacement structure was to be a "rental" with what surely would have been a stream of less than desirable types out of clear sight of authorities. This saga has taken a very positive turn as far as I am concerned.
If the structure you mention was built on a lot line, and eventually collapsed, sounds like one that was not built to code even back then, so probably a make-shift structure.
In any case it was next to a house you say is now being restored. .. and I think what we were trying to get at is the integrity of the historic structures in Springfield.. now minus this garage apt building you are speaking of. If It collapsed , it was either A. Not built well, B. Not maintained or C. Both. :) For the most part , the structures of Springfield do not pose a threat nor have they, even in this instance harmed anyone. They usually do not fall down on another structure or person . Without the help of a bulldozer most of these places aren't going anywhere.
Quote from: Timkin on February 07, 2012, 05:16:54 PM
If the structure you mention was built on a lot line, and eventually collapsed, sounds like one that was not built to code even back then, so probably a make-shift structure.
In any case it was next to a house you say is now being restored. .. and I think what we were trying to get at is the integrity of the historic structures in Springfield.. now minus this garage apt building you are speaking of. If It collapsed , it was either A. Not built well, B. Not maintained or C. Both. :) For the most part , the structures of Springfield do not pose a threat nor have they, even in this instance harmed anyone. They usually do not fall down on another structure or person . Without the help of a bulldozer most of these places aren't going anywhere.
Totally agree!
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/113east3rdst.jpg)
Sheclown, is that the home that is being rehabbed or another slated for demo?
This home is condemed and on code's hit list.
The COA notice is to mothball the home so the owner can rehab without harassment.
from Chris Farley's research
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-02-23-0947-40.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-02-23-0948-23.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/v/UQbBNQjaC74?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
There is a lot more to this story, I'm sure. If this man owned a lot of land (properties and or houses) the real question is was he taking care of the houses he purchased or doing the typical PSOS hoard, board, and neglect? You can't save or preserve houses unless you start working on them. The city has an obligation to protect citizens that live in a neighborhood and pay their property taxes. If you can't afford to maintain one property don't buy another property. How many houses does one man need?
Jaxequality, please read the thread and watch the video. Your comments were not on subject.
I would think using an alias of Jaxequality you would want to have the laws equally enforced instead of selectively enforced against those businesses or people some may not like. Which is what this video is about. It is also about recognizing that the houses do not commit crimes, do not sell drugs nor do they harm anyone. It is just easier for this city to blame the house than to do it's job of stopping the criminal activity.
Quote from: jaxequality on August 11, 2014, 12:22:42 AM
There is a lot more to this story, I'm sure. If this man owned a lot of land (properties and or houses) the real question is was he taking care of the houses he purchased or doing the typical PSOS hoard, board, and neglect? You can't save or preserve houses unless you start working on them. The city has an obligation to protect citizens that live in a neighborhood and pay their property taxes. If you can't afford to maintain one property don't buy another property. How many houses does one man need?
"PSOS hoard, board, and neglect?" What does that mean? For the record, PSOS does not currently own any homes at this time. The last one donated to us was recently sold for the cost of the back taxes with anticipation that it will be restored.
The City also has an obligation to protect our historic structures, which it typically does not do.
save the houses!
Save the houses !
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on August 11, 2014, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: jaxequality on August 11, 2014, 12:22:42 AM
There is a lot more to this story, I'm sure. If this man owned a lot of land (properties and or houses) the real question is was he taking care of the houses he purchased or doing the typical PSOS hoard, board, and neglect? You can't save or preserve houses unless you start working on them. The city has an obligation to protect citizens that live in a neighborhood and pay their property taxes. If you can't afford to maintain one property don't buy another property. How many houses does one man need?
"PSOS hoard, board, and neglect?" What does that mean? For the record, PSOS does not currently own any homes at this time. The last one donated to us was recently sold for the cost of the back taxes with anticipation that it will be restored.
The City also has an obligation to protect our historic structures, which it typically does not do.
PSOS may not currently own any properties, but how many homes have been sold to organization member? How many homes are owned by a single member? Of the networks of homes PSOS has had a hand in, how many are better off? Does PSOS as an organization have the capacity to measure the good they are or are not bringing to Springfield, or is it really just a group of free agents getting cheap houses? I think these are the right kind of questions you ask of an organization.
The anger toward PSOS stems from those in the community who believe that the way to revitalize a community is to remove the homes in need of renovation -- it is not an unpopular belief -- it is shared by the blight committee. However, it is this mindset that led to the leveling of LaVilla and will do so to the urban core if enacted.
It is also a poor way to handle our resources -- filling landfills and leaving lots to be mowed.
As far as your concerns about PSOS personally profiting from the donated houses, I will address that. One of the battles we fight is for transparency of city actions and while we try to be as transparent as possible (and I invite you to our forum and our website http://www.preservationsos.org/our-houses) I will answer those questions here as well.
Over the course of 4 years we have been donated 12 houses. Two on Walnut Court, one on Clark Street, one on Second Street and 8 in Dancy Terrace.
The first on Walnut Court: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=13480.0
This house had 400k of rolling fines on it. Jeff, the owner, tried to give it away to others, but no one would take it. PSOS did.
We mothballed it and gave it to a lawyer who contacted us and wanted to set up a home office. We transferred the deed and he shortly thereafter lost it to back taxes. We learned a lesson here -- and now require back taxes paid at the time of transfer.
The house is still standing and has been purchased by JWB builders.
We stopped the bulldozers on this one for sure.
The second Walnut Court donation is this one:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,15453.0.html
This house was a burn out and was given to us. We gave this house to Steve of "The Palace Company" who is lovingly restoring it.
Our next donation was 1536 Clark Street
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=15781.0
and
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=15452.0
and
http://www.preservationsos.org/our-houses/1536-clark-street
We mothballed this property.
Within days of losing it to back taxes (PSOS did not have the approximately $5k to pay), Jerry took deed to the property and paid the back taxes. Jerry is Nicole's dad. He is currently rehabbing the property.
This house is still standing.
8 Dancy Bungalows
http://www.preservationsos.org/our-houses/dancy-terrace
We bought these bungalows for $3000. We had plans to mothball all of them and try to get the other bungalows donated.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A ROLLING FINE OF 12 MILLION DOLLARS ON THESE PROPERTIES THAT KEEPS ACCUMULATING EVERY DAY. And the 12 million is attached TO EACH SEPARATE BUNGALOW
Thank you code enforcement.
So, before losing these to back taxes, Hailing (a board members wife), paid the back taxes and gave PSOS $3000 that we paid for them. And she took the risk of the rolling fines.
These, quite naturally, are in limbo until something can be done with the ridiculous rolling fine policy.
229 East 2nd Street was on the formal track to demolition before it was donated to PSOS.
http://www.preservationsos.org/our-houses/229-east-2nd-street
That puppy had $15k in back taxes attached to it. We begged and pleaded to anyone who would listen to take this off of our hands.
Finally it recently happened. PSOS sold this property for the cost of the back taxes and the closing costs and now will be rehabbed. PSOS does not know the owner.
As of this time, PSOS does not own any more properties.
Our forum is here:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/index.php?sid=6c705fef94c27f249edc9b71ec40e00e
As far as the houses with the hearts on them -- we don't own, we board to keep out mischief and scavengers --
I hope this answers any questions.
Save the houses.
Great job sheclown! BRAVO!!