Tarpon owned.
Approved for the non-existent formal track MCCD doesn't have to move homes on a fast track for demolition that they don't really do.
Approved eons ago.
City (code enforcement) released the house for demolition.
Contractor came in yesterday to HPC for COA.
Elaine Lancaster said it was going to fall as the roof was coming undone in HPC meeting.
Yeah, guess what? ROOF STILL THERE!!!!!
This is total crap and there's absolutely NO reason to bring that house down! This simply has got to stop
Game on.
Biggest fight of the century
Historic Structure Advocates VS MCCD
A real David VS Goliath match up
Admission, one letter (E-mail) to your councilman and whatever donation you can afford
http://forum.preservationsos.org/ (http://forum.preservationsos.org/)
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx/ (http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx/)
This link gets me to the Preservation SOS website, but I don't see a link to my city councilman.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx
Quote from: iloveionia on March 01, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
Game on.
Don't mean to hijack this thread but has anyone posted about what the heck is going on at 21st and Phoenix. Looks like an entire stretch has been leveled. Whats the plan?
Quote from: strider on March 01, 2012, 08:57:00 PM
Biggest fight of the century
Historic Structure Advocates VS MCCD
A real David VS Goliath match up
Admission, one letter (E-mail) to your councilman and whatever donation you can afford
http://forum.preservationsos.org/ (http://forum.preservationsos.org/)
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx/ (http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx/)
Fixed it.
This house? Eh, looks pretty rough. Tear it down.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1647+Pearl+street+jacksonville+fl&ll=30.344769,-81.658437&spn=0.001523,0.00327&sll=30.344531,-81.658484&layer=c&cbp=13,187.67,,0,7.15&cbll=30.344778,-81.658536&gl=us&hnear=1647+N+Pearl+St,+Jacksonville,+Florida+32206&t=m&z=19&panoid=xQc8_YOSmqzcXP4OVApZBg (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1647+Pearl+street+jacksonville+fl&ll=30.344769,-81.658437&spn=0.001523,0.00327&sll=30.344531,-81.658484&layer=c&cbp=13,187.67,,0,7.15&cbll=30.344778,-81.658536&gl=us&hnear=1647+N+Pearl+St,+Jacksonville,+Florida+32206&t=m&z=19&panoid=xQc8_YOSmqzcXP4OVApZBg)
As of 9:45 this morning Joel McEachin has not signed the COA for the contractor to be able to pull a permit to demolish this house. He is waiting to hear from his new director. If and when the COA is signed PSOS will immediately file a legal appeal to the City Council. We have the $800 and completed forms sitting on Chris', our board member and attorney's desk.
Quote from: iloveionia on March 02, 2012, 09:55:43 AM
As of 9:45 this morning Joel McEachin has not signed the COA for the contractor to be able to pull a permit to demolish this house. He is waiting to hear from his new director. If and when the COA is signed PSOS will immediately file a legal appeal to the City Council. We have the $800 and completed forms sitting on Chris', our board member and attorney's desk.
Kudos.
QuoteTarpon owned.
Are they simply abandoning all of their properties in Jacksonville? They won't respond to the City about securing the Annie Lytle School which they also hold title to. Seems a strange business they are in.
I walked around the 1647 Pearl St. house today and it is really in pretty good shape structurally. The roof issues are relatively minor and can be at least temporarily fixed with a few well placed screws. There is a bit of soffit and facia damage that would need addressed to mothball the house. The foundation (piers) are in good condition save for a couple on the old addition - read that enclosed and added on to rear porch. Even so, the piers are not in danger of falling over or anything and should be just watched and added support provided if they get any worse. The main sills, from what I could get at, are in good shape. In other words, this house was never at the point that anyone would have to worry about it falling over, down or even shifting. The reports from MCCD were nothing but fabrications to insure the house got put on the non-existent, but official recognized, in-house "Formal Track". The placement of this house, as well as most other, on Formal Track was done with blatant misinformation provided by MCCD, often helped by the then leadership of SPAR Council. Knowing this, all of those historic houses which are supposedly under the protection of the CIty per it's own codes, that were placed on "Formal Track" should be recalled by the HPC. They can do it, it has been done before. In fact, they can even call an emergency meeting to do it. Are they brave enough to face down MCCD?
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1647pearl.jpg)
1647 Pearl Street
save the houses
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/1547PearlSt.jpg)
Quote
Dear Historic Preservation Commissioners,
We respectfully request that you repeat a series of motions as you did in April 2009 in regards to removing a house from the formal track list.
The process according to the minutes and general counsel are as follows:
1.) motion to reconsider
2.) second and vote to reconsider
3.) motion to remove from the formal track
4.) second and a vote to remove from the formal track
We appreciate your respect for our Nationally Recognized Historic Neigborhood and our desire as a community to "save the houses." All of them.
We need an emergency session of the Historic Planning Commission.
http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1785
Rock on. Monday can't come soon enough.
Our neighborhood deserves this. We've lost too much.
Quote from: movedsouthThis is an excerpt from the April 28th 2010 HPC meeting. Note how several commissioners speak out in favor of the building. SPAR speaks out in favor of it. One of the commissioners was actually inside the building and considered it in ok shape. Yet, even though the Code representative has issues with the pictures (if I interpret the notes correctly), and can't really proof her assertion that the roof is about to blow off, the house is added to the "Formal Track for Demolition". As far as I can tell, living about a block from the house, the roof is still sitting on top of the house today.
Quote
Okay. The third condemned property to be heard tonight is 1647 North Pearl Street.
MS. MARTINAGE: Mr. Chairman, this is another structure that is boarded and secured. It does not have an open back half like the last one did.
In my site visit, I did not see any major structural issues, any settling or anything. It just looked like an abandoned house that was waiting for someone to come in and give it a little bit of TLC. That's the view from the alley (indicating). You know, I did not see any major issues. It looked -- and -- just empty condition to me. But, you know, it is boarded and secured at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing.
MS. LANCASTER: At this address, at 1647 North Pearl, we actually do have an order to abate by demolition on it also. And please note, at the back of the house, on the chimney side in that picture, yesterday when I was out there taking my pictures, the wind was actually raising the tin roof. It was actually -- I was surprised. I was waiting for it to blow off to the neighbor's yard. So the wind condition on that roof is an issue. We have several other issues with this. We actually had this at the commission back in August of last year and at that time the commission denied the formal track. And I don't even think I asked for conditions at that time. I think I just accepted it because it was in such good shape. I do have some issues with my pictures that I've given you with the roof condition of the structure, with a commission already denying it and we're now nine months later, we're still not having anything done, the roof condition itself, I am requesting the formal track for demolition for this structure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else here to speak on this matter?
(Ms. Boydston approaches the podium.)
MS. BOYDSTON: Brenda Boydston, executive director for SPAR. We are asking for a deferral of this as well. We have a new committee that's formed that is aggressively going to go after getting new owners or locating these. So please defer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
MS. SIMON: I don't want to sound redundant, but it just -- if the roof -- if we're having problems with the roof, it seems like it would be cheaper to repair the roof than tear the house down. The City is going to pay 6- or $7,000 to abate the house and tear it down and then it goes in the landfill. It just seems like it makes more sense to repair the roof.
MS. LANCASTER: Ms. Shaw, can you help me here? Actually, the Property Safety Division is not in the -- does not repair properties, does not do rehabing.
MS. SHAW: Yeah, that's the owner's responsibility --
MS. LANCASTER: That's the owner's --
MS. SHAW: -- is to repair the property. And after numerous notices from the City to the owner to come in and make -- and correct these violations, then the City has no other alternative but -- other than the ordinance giving them authority -- and this board order by the special magistrate ordering the City and giving them approval to demolish the property to make it safe. So the City has done everything it can in order to make this building safe, short of demolishing it. So that's where we are now. And as far as repairing the roof, that's the owner's responsibility. And they're ignoring -- the owner is obviously ignoring the City, so -- and this is the City's alternative.
MS. LANCASTER: And I have to say one other thing. Please be aware of this too, that this case is a 1998 case. We're 12 years trying to work with this owner. So, I mean, 12 years later, this is -- you know, it's still standing. We're still not rehabed. And the argument was -- and it was Ms. Simon back in August argued because we were actually taking both of the houses down, 1643 also, which was approved that night. And as you see in this picture, it's still standing because it's taken me nine months to get it ready. So, you know, we can't rehab it. We don't rehab properties. I have to come in here and ask for an order to demo. I'm going to ask not to defer this for six months because it's already been deferred by this commission nine months, and it's probably going to take me nine months to get it to the ground. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else here to speak on this matter?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission.
MS. SIMON: I'll just be the bad guy and say this house is not that bad either. It makes no sense. This is maybe where we've met before to try to come up with some other solutions. It just shows me that we need to come up with some other solution because -- the owner won't fix the roof, so let's tear the house down? I mean, it --
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the house for sale or anything?
MS. SIMON: I think the owners are foreign and I think they have -- there's a language --
THE CHAIRMAN: You have to speak into the mic.
MS. SIMON: If it's the same owners, I've spoken to them in the past. They're foreign. They have -- there's kind of a language barrier and maybe an understanding barrier where maybe SPAR can step in and help if they're going out, you know, aggressively trying to pursue this now. I really applaud Brenda for trying to do this.
MS. SCHIFANELLA: This property does feel different to me than the other one. You know, the other one, I think the testimony was clear. There was nothing structurally at risk there. This property does look less sound. And also I think, you know, the nine months has already been there. I think if we defer this one, it should be a short-term deferment because this one has had its opportunity. That's my opinion. It's had nine months already.
MS. LANCASTER: Mr. Chairman, I know you're
all in discussion, but in one of y'all's
pictures, if you don't mind, we actually do have
piers starting at the back. You're seeing the
crack and seeing where they're missing. And I
was supposed to bring that to your attention.
So there is actually issues with the structure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MS. LANCASTER: My apology.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody want to make a
motion?
MR. MOORE: I make a motion that we approve
1647 Pearl Street North for demolition and defer
that for three months.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
MR. CASE: I'll second that.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion by the commissioners?
COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have approved 1647 Pearl Street North for demolition with a three-month delay.
Why did the commissioners testify that this house was not in bad shape and then vote to tear it down?
What are we missing here?
It's nauseating.
They need to reverse their ridiculous decision.
Obviously the house is not in eminent danger of falling. Duh!!!!
And, by the way, it costs...what...$7000 or more to demolish a house?
I thought our city was having a financial crisis? Do we really have money like this to waste?
Save a couple of houses and you could save someone's job.
An interesting thought, if we do have to appeal this, it seems to me that rather than appeal the HPC decision, which is older than 21 days and has no COA attached to it, we are actually appealing the administratively approved COA to the demo contractor therefore the appeals process is different and we are actually just taking it to the HPC and would only have to pay the normal HPC fee. We would not be appealing the original HPC decision in any way but rather the fact that we feel a demolition COA can not be legally approved by staff and also the demolition itself that was just now approved, which is different than the HPC approval of two years ago. Then, if the HPC somehow upheld the new COA, then we would have to appeal that HPC decision through the normal HPC appeal process. Then at least we would have a COA to appeal.
So the commission voted to tear it down because the roof has some tin coming up on one side that the owner wont address? That is how the city is dealing with lax owners? "The owner won't coorperate so we will tear down the house!" bullshit. take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work. Period. Otherwise there is no point in having a district that is a nationally designated historic district. It really means nothing. We might as well be the westside or arlington for God's sake!
You are correct.
Also, MCCD will tout that it has been in the "system" for too long. The fines exceed the value of the home. Blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, every home they have demolished leaves behind a scar that has tens and thousands of dollars of liens and fines on it, and likely multiple years of back taxes. It is no help to our city or to our neighborhood.
ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!!!!!!!! :(
Quote from: Timkin on March 05, 2012, 12:32:26 AM
ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!!!!!!!! :(
Simalarities with our HISTORIC promised 680' Downtown Public Pier. Sheclown looking forward to seeing you tonight.
Quote from: avs on March 04, 2012, 04:04:22 PM
take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.
What authority is this?
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/DrSeuss.jpg)
Quote from: Kaiser SozeQuote from: avstake the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.
What authority is this?
The city has the authority (I don't know exactly what department, other than legal) to take ownership of the structure for the unpaid taxes and liens. Other cities do it and the auction or 'Sheriff' sale, but the city attorneys keep saying they don't want to be in the Real Estate business, so instead, they allow demo after demo and still never recover the monies owed. Tell me where the freaking sense in that is?
Taking houses down because of the owner failing to comply, or because the fines have gone above the value of the house is complete crap. This has got to stop!
Well, first, I think the City is one of the largest land holders in the City, so I think they are already in the real estate business. But they don't have to be in the historic homes real estate business. They can take the house and sell it to someone for $1, or auction it, with a rider that requires a COA and a performance bond for the work completion. If the work is not completed as agreed, they take the house back and sell it again. Better than allowing people to let the house rot, and then tear it down. Probably cheaper for taxpapers too since it costs thousands of dollars to demolish a house, and they already have real estate lawyers that could handle the paperwork for the take and sell idea, and the legal authority to do it.
As Springfielder said, other cities do it...cities that CARE about their historic fabric.
Quote from: Springfielder on March 05, 2012, 12:50:13 PM
Quote from: Kaiser SozeQuote from: avstake the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.
What authority is this?
The city has the authority (I don't know exactly what department, other than legal) to take ownership of the structure for the unpaid taxes and liens. Other cities do it and the auction or 'Sheriff' sale, but the city attorneys keep saying they don't want to be in the Real Estate business, so instead, they allow demo after demo and still never recover the monies owed. Tell me where the freaking sense in that is?
Taking houses down because of the owner failing to comply, or because the fines have gone above the value of the house is complete crap. This has got to stop!
Could not agree more. The mentality in place that this is the way to remedy homes/buildings that are neglected by destroying them needs to be removed, period. We ( the taxpayers) should be in charge of what happens to our historic places. Just reading the HPC Notes above , it is painfully evident that incompetence is running our city. These people need to go. Demolishing everything may end the problem in their eyes, but it is certainly taking a toll on we the taxpayers as well.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 05, 2012, 01:48:33 PM
Well, first, I think the City is one of the largest land holders in the City, so I think they are already in the real estate business. But they don't have to be in the historic homes real estate business. They can take the house and sell it to someone for $1, or auction it, with a rider that requires a COA and a performance bond for the work completion. If the work is not completed as agreed, they take the house back and sell it again. Better than allowing people to let the house rot, and then tear it down. Probably cheaper for taxpapers too since it costs thousands of dollars to demolish a house, and they already have real estate lawyers that could handle the paperwork for the take and sell idea, and the legal authority to do it.
+1
I too have heard this "we're not in the real estate business" schtick from city employees. It doesn't make any sense! Let me see if I understand this. Rather than auction the property and apply the proceeds to the existing liens, the city would rather pay $7000 to demo the house and then remain responsible for maintenance (mowing, etc) and liability on the lot?
It's obvious that the city is not in the real estate "business." Anyone with that business plan would have gone out of business long ago.
Quote from: JaxByDefault on March 05, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 05, 2012, 01:48:33 PM
Well, first, I think the City is one of the largest land holders in the City, so I think they are already in the real estate business. But they don't have to be in the historic homes real estate business. They can take the house and sell it to someone for $1, or auction it, with a rider that requires a COA and a performance bond for the work completion. If the work is not completed as agreed, they take the house back and sell it again. Better than allowing people to let the house rot, and then tear it down. Probably cheaper for taxpapers too since it costs thousands of dollars to demolish a house, and they already have real estate lawyers that could handle the paperwork for the take and sell idea, and the legal authority to do it.
+1
I too have heard this "we're not in the real estate business" schtick from city employees. It doesn't make any sense! Let me see if I understand this. Rather than auction the property and apply the proceeds to the existing liens, the city would rather pay $7000 to demo the house and then remain responsible for maintenance (mowing, etc) and liability on the lot?
It's obvious that the city is not in the real estate "business." Anyone with that business plan would have gone out of business long ago.
Thing is , the City is not on the hook for the demolition costs. We are. That is wrong.
Yes, Timkin, it is the tax payers who foot the bill in the end. The empty lot will sit unwanted and collect more MCCD fines and liens until the city ends up with it because no one bought it at a tax sale. A funny thing; Mothballing these houses in partnership with a local non-profit would save the tax payers thousands of dollars and still allow MCCD to justify its existence. Rather than embrace that fact, it seems the chief would rather demolish and waste more tax payer money. Of course, that tax payer money is often filtered through programs like Jacksonville Journey and NSP funding, which I thought were supposed to help communities not destroy them.
Come on Jacksonville and MCCD, isn't it time the we started helping rather than hindering our communities?
Quote from: strider on March 06, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Yes, Timkin, it is the tax payers who foot the bill in the end. The empty lot will sit unwanted and collect more MCCD fines and liens until the city ends up with it because no one bought it at a tax sale. A funny thing; Mothballing these houses in partnership with a local non-profit would save the tax payers thousands of dollars and still allow MCCD to justify its existence. Rather than embrace that fact, it seems the chief would rather demolish and waste more tax payer money. Of course, that tax payer money is often filtered through programs like Jacksonville Journey and NSP funding, which I thought were supposed to help communities not destroy them.
Come on Jacksonville and MCCD, isn't it time the we started helping rather than hindering our communities?
We need the people behind these demolitions OUT . Period. This mentality is destroying our community at our expense, and WE should be calling the shots.
Quote from: Timkin on March 06, 2012, 08:53:44 PM
Quote from: strider on March 06, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Yes, Timkin, it is the tax payers who foot the bill in the end. The empty lot will sit unwanted and collect more MCCD fines and liens until the city ends up with it because no one bought it at a tax sale. A funny thing; Mothballing these houses in partnership with a local non-profit would save the tax payers thousands of dollars and still allow MCCD to justify its existence. Rather than embrace that fact, it seems the chief would rather demolish and waste more tax payer money. Of course, that tax payer money is often filtered through programs like Jacksonville Journey and NSP funding, which I thought were supposed to help communities not destroy them.
Come on Jacksonville and MCCD, isn't it time the we started helping rather than hindering our communities?
We need the people behind these demolitions OUT . Period. This mentality is destroying our community at our expense, and WE should be calling the shots.
That person would be Kim Scott.
And she is one tough lady!
How can we oust her?
I still don't understand why they are so eager to demolish these houses. Is public safety really the issue? Do they need to tear structures down to justify their jobs? Was someone's family member the victim of a crumbling historic building as a child and this is their way of exacting revenge?
I have heard, but don't know for sure, that MCCD is graded on how many cases they close. Unfortunately, that puts open cases at risk. So there needs to be an exception of some kind for historic districts, a major change in how MCCD is judged, or a way to suspend as opposed to closing or keeping a case active.
That last one should be a simple fix. Come up with an option to code unusual and/or historic district cases for suspense so you can track them, but not be judged badly for not closing them.
Try this: We know that at least more recently, funding for demolitions comes from places like the Jacksonville Journey and NSP. What if the department that gets to use this funding also gets some amount of funds that helps cover their cost of the admin side of the demolitions? What if the funding is like 10K , the actual cost is 7K and the department gets to keep the rest? I don't know if this is true or not, but there is more to this wanting to demo historic houses or any house within the targeted areas of the urban core than just clearing cases and an unrealistic idea of what public safety means. When things like this do not seem to make sense, it normally means there is money involved somehow.
Just got this from CM Lumb:
"
The demolition of 1647 North Pearl St has been stayed.
You will be receiving information concerning Councilman Lumb's Town Hall meeting in regard to Springfield preservation shortly.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
"
Quote from: movedsouth on March 08, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
Just got this from CM Lumb:
"
The demolition of 1647 North Pearl St has been stayed.
You will be receiving information concerning Councilman Lumb's Town Hall meeting in regard to Springfield preservation shortly.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
"
Stayed means stopped I presume? Sure hope so.
"stayed" means "stopped for now"
We really need the culprits behind the express demolitions "removed" .. That means FIRED. We do not need this sort of mentality representing our City, which has lost far more history than it ever should have.
Thank you Councilman Lumb!
Stayed means for now. Now the work begins to find long term solutions. But at least this house may still be around to benefit when we do. CM Lumb and his exec asst, Donna Barrow (dlbarrow@coj.net.) Please send a thank you email and let them know you look forward to their upcoming meeting.
will do!!!!
from Code's case recap:
Quote
03/05/2012 N The pending demolition of this structure was placed back on "hold" this
morning, and an e-mail was sent to Michael Lloyd Hauling notifying them
of the "hold". whamilton
E. Wayne Hamilton
03/05/2012 N I contacted Ms. Pam Cowden with Atlantic Engineering Services, and
requested a structural engineering report on the two story house at 1647
Pearl Street North. Ms. Cowden agreed to submit her written report to us
no later than close of business on Wednesday, 3/7. whamilton
E. Wayne Hamilton
03/09/2012 N Received the Structural Condition Assessment report on 3/7/2012.
whamilton
E. Wayne Hamilton
04/28/2010 S 1998-4990- Approved by HPC on 4-28-10 after July 30, 2010. E.Lancaster Voria Lancaster
you may read the entire case file by going here:
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=896&p=9781#p9781
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
Could be. We would like to see the report.
Nothing funny about it! Derelicts running that department. Unbelievable.
It may be the engineer says the house is perfectly stable. But it may also be that the engineer was steered in the direction of "we'd like to know if you think think the house is 'unsafe' or not" so tell us if it is. We really don't know if it's an unbiased report or not...no way to know.
Remember, just because a house may be unsafe, and I'm not saying this one is, but if it is, that does not mean a few simple repairs would not set things right again. This one is simply not the hazard to public safety it's being painted to be.
We would like to see the report. We would like to assess its validity and draw our own conclusions about it.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 12, 2012, 09:18:40 PM
It may be the engineer says the house is perfectly stable. But it may also be that the engineer was steered in the direction of "we'd like to know if you think think the house is 'unsafe' or not" so tell us if it is. We really don't know if it's an unbiased report or not...no way to know.
Remember, just because a house may be unsafe, and I'm not saying this one is, but if it is, that does not mean a jack and a few posts would not set things right again. Or that it is so 'unsafe' that it has to come down or is in danger of falling down. Because clearly this one IS NOT.
We would like to see the report. We would like to assess its validity and draw our own conclusions about it.
Agree.. There can be a variety of reasons a house is condemned or deemed unsafe.. The home I now reside in was condemned and had multiple issues.... but it sure as hell didn't have a death threat the way the Springfield area has been dealt.
I would like to believe the Engineering report states the house is stable , end of discussion. Given the track record of Code Enforcement and the non-stop demolitions, forgive me if I am suspicious of this report, given that it is requested after demolition was granted , then stayed. I will hold on to hope.
I would like to see the report as well and would need to see a pretty good reason the house should not be saved. I have seen MUCH worse than this one, spared. My grandparent's home in Ortega would have been a prime example. But it was , with much expense and incredible speed, saved.
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
Alas, here is how the story goes:
You see once upon a time there was a cute, but struggling historic district just on the outskirts of downtown: Springfield. Many people came to Springfield in the late 90s in hopes to find their riches in real estate by scooping up dirt cheap historic homes. These people, guised under LLC names, forgot about the homes they purchased after they didn't make the money they had hoped. These homes have sat in our records for many, many years, some since 1998 have racked up thousands of dollars of fines and the fine far exceed the value of the home! And the owner hasn't done a thing to it. They've ignorned it! We've posted notifications on the property addresses, but to no avail, no response. So we decided that we would put an end to that and convince HPC that this "formal track" (ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it's not under chapter 508 it is just an internal practice we use but don't tell the whole truth about,) well actually "formal track for demolition" will give the house a chance. We tell HPC that the house is going to fall down and that small pieces of flapping sheet metal are going to injure or (worse yet!) kill someone. We tell them we are going to contact the owner to get them to repair (well technically we demand that they "restore or demolish") the home and they will have an opporunity to help the house. HPC agrees, and (thankfully) because we don't always tell the truth, and certainly we are not educated in construction, preservation, or hold engineer licenses. We just blow it out however we can to get the go ahead to proceed and place the home on the formal track. And alas, because the neighborhood was asleep at the wheeel, didn't care, or however you wish to call it, we got our approval. We took the next months to continue to threaten the owner of the home, although we never actually get in touch with them. Then we call our friends at the engineering company and pay them to say the house must be torn down, that it is "structurally unsound." Becuase we don't want to be sued by the owner after we tear down their house. We pay more money to remove the abestsos from the interior of the house, and more money to cut the service lines to the house. We then pay bocou bucks for the lowest bidder to demolish the house and drop it in a landfill over off the I-10 somewhere. We have done this so many times we often joke among inspectors and demo contractors that there should be a "Welcome to Springfield " sign over at the entrance to the landfill. But truth is, we interpret the law as we see fit. While I am certain we could pay contractors to make minor repairs and stablize the house, it is just not what we are going to do. We are closed minded and preservation is NOT our job, safety is our job, and certainly you 13th hour people aren't doing this process any good. But hey, Springfield has improved. I've been here for many years and you wouldn't believe how much better it is. Be glad for that. Editor's note: typos, poor grammar and spelling left intentionally. . . . . . .
...Now I'm following :o
"And alas, because the neighborhood was asleep at the wheeel, didn't care, or however you wish to call it, we got our approval."
And then there were those of us who can't attend day time meetings, who trusted the City and neighborhood to protect our historic homes, only to find out our trust was misplaced. :-)
QuoteMS. LANCASTER: Mr. Chairman, I know you're
all in discussion, but in one of y'all's
pictures, if you don't mind, we actually do have
piers starting at the back. You're seeing the
crack and seeing where they're missing. And I
was supposed to bring that to your attention.
So there is actually issues with the structure.
By the way, Ms. Lancaster, there are no piers missing on this house today. Did they magically grow back?
The post a couple above this was fiction. Based very much on the reality of MCCD. Sad, isn't it?
By and by, MCCD inspectors were seen coming out of this house today ... with some guys in shorts and boots. Wonder what Ms. Scott is up to now?
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
I hope so. That POS has been unoccupied for
15 years.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
I hope so. That POS has been unoccupied for 15 years.
And that means what? That perhaps MCCD has made this house, like so many others, so toxic with their hinder rather than helping in anyway tactics that no one could make the rehab work. I know people whose heads have been empty for longer than that, should we "tear" them down? What about those old buildings downtown, you think they all should be torn down as well?
Many do not get it. The old houses are what makes a Historic District important to begin with. Unless you have those houses, there will be no Historic District. No tax abatement for the owners. No resale that is higher (normally) than other areas. We have lost between 20 and 25% of the housing stock since 1985 (per the Historic Planning Department) and we can not afford to lose anymore from the moronic behavior of a few people and the city departments
Preach it, Strider! It'an HISTORIC district, for crying out loud! Why would you tear down historic homes? This house, and so many of the others, can be saved. Is the system broken? Oh, yes. Do we need more tools in the tool box of preservation? Without a doubt. Instead of wholesale destruction, how about working solutions instead? Solutions that will bring this house and all the others an opportunity.
BTW...disagree with you, Kaiser. This house is most certainly not a POS. It is structurally sound, and eminently salvagable.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
I hope so. That POS has been unoccupied for 15 years.
He must mean "piece of specialness"
Quote from: sheclown on March 15, 2012, 02:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
I hope so. That POS has been unoccupied for 15 years.
He must mean "piece of specialness"
I never refer to poo as "specialness."
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: sheclown on March 15, 2012, 02:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: Timkin on March 12, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 12, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Wait, so they're just now getting around to ordering a structural engineering report AFTER it was already supposed to have been demolished? You gotta be kidding me.
I guess I'm not following.... are they doing this structural engineering report now to have an angle to proceed with demolition?
I hope so. That POS has been unoccupied for 15 years.
He must mean "piece of specialness"
I never refer to poo as "specialness."
You must work for the city
Seems like the problem would be solved by allowing the city to foreclose on these properties once the fines reach the value of the property. Then auction them off and recoup the fines they will never see. Instead the city is paying for demolitions. How much does that cost? 10k per house?
$5-$12k depending on size and scope.
The Jewish Center would have been well beyond $12k
Quote from: acme54321 on March 15, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Seems like the problem would be solved by allowing the city to foreclose on these properties once the fines reach the value of the property. Then auction them off and recoup the fines they will never see. Instead the city is paying for demolitions. How much does that cost? 10k per house?
This would be my answer.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on March 15, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on March 15, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Seems like the problem would be solved by allowing the city to foreclose on these properties once the fines reach the value of the property. Then auction them off and recoup the fines they will never see. Instead the city is paying for demolitions. How much does that cost? 10k per house?
This would be my answer.
The city already has the ability to do this. They simply choose not to.
and it could be done online...like it already is
https://www.duval.realforeclose.com/index.cfm?ZACTION=HOME&ZMETHOD=SITEGUIDE