Metro Jacksonville

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537366

Historical buildings are dropping like flies, first Worman's and perhaps the Bostwick Building.  But hey its ok, we can leave Berkman 2 up.  Nobody notices that eyesore.

From the article:  "DVI board member Oliver Barakat suggested that the organization advocate for the preservation of the building, saying that if it is demolished, “we send a message that it’s OK to tear down historic buildings Downtown.”  Daily Record Publisher Jim Bailey, a former DVI board member, said at the meeting that the building had deteriorated to the point that preservation or repair would be extremely expensive."

1)  Had intervention been applied sooner, the deterioration would never have reached the point Mr. Bailey mentioned.

2)  With early intervention not done, why isn't the extra expense worth it to preserve history, as Mr. Barakat advocates?

3)  Ditto the Center Theatre with Mr. Bailey goes on to discuss. We could have had another fabulous building like the Florida Theatre downtown, instead of a vacant lot.

Quote from: Jagsdrew on August 28, 2012, 11:52:06 AM
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537366

Historical buildings are dropping like flies, first Worman's and perhaps the Bostwick Building.  But hey its ok, we can leave Berkman 2 up.  Nobody notices that eyesore.

In all fairness, the citys hands are tied with the Berkman 2. There is ZERO they can do. All they can do is fine them for the condition of the property (which my understanding they have been.) But its up to the actual owner, like in the case of the bostwick building AND worman's Deli, to request demolition.  Its not like the city is picking building to tear down. However, atleast there are being efforts made to save the Bostwick. But what we do with it next is the question.

In the case of Worman's and Bostwick, the City is supposed to work to preserve historic buildings. Berkman that doesn't apply to.

That said, what happened with Berkman is a shame.

I wonder if the owner would entertain letting a volunteer crew Mothball the building?  Should be less costly than demo?

Quote from: Timkin on August 28, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
I wonder if the owner would entertain letting a volunteer crew Mothball the building?  Should be less costly than demo?

It has no roof; I think it's beyond "mothballing". 

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on August 28, 2012, 05:58:22 PM
In the case of Worman's and Bostwick, the City is supposed to work to preserve historic buildings. Berkman that doesn't apply to.

That said, what happened with Berkman is a shame.

What is going on with that case? I know everything was haulted because of the law suit that was going on, but that has been 5 years ago now. Last I heard everything was still hung up in court. Until thats resovled, I dont think anything is going to happen with that property. The city has called them like crazy and they will not respond. Im tired of looking at thing

I didn't mean to hijack the thread about the Bostwick Building in picking up on the Berkman mention.  Let's start a thread on the Berkman to discuss that.  Sorry!

Timkin, I would agree with Pinky that the level of work necessary to mothball the structure is almost certainly beyond what a volunteer crew could accomplish.  We're not talking about sweeping and clearing debris - the building needs some serious structural mitigation (plus the aforementioned roof) to even get to a point of medium-term physical stability.  It speaks to the integrity of that old building style that the walls are even still standing now...a building built in today's method/style would probably have already collapsed if it were placed under the same stress.

They don't build them like they used to, and soon we'll only be able to learn about "how they used to" through pictures vs. preserved physical examples.  Very sad.

Quote from: bornnative on August 29, 2012, 02:51:48 PM
Timkin, I would agree with Pinky that the level of work necessary to mothball the structure is almost certainly beyond what a volunteer crew could accomplish.  We're not talking about sweeping and clearing debris - the building needs some serious structural mitigation (plus the aforementioned roof) to even get to a point of medium-term physical stability.  It speaks to the integrity of that old building style that the walls are even still standing now...a building built in today's method/style would probably have already collapsed if it were placed under the same stress.

They don't build them like they used to, and soon we'll only be able to learn about "how they used to" through pictures vs. preserved physical examples.  Very sad.

No argument that it would be a major ordeal.    Is it worth trying? 

I guess being owned by someone not willing to do anything but destroy it says all that needs to be said on the matter.

So disheartening.   Another one neglected til it cannot feasibly be saved.  More to come.

I just love this city. 

More to come.

I just love this city.


Well, they're off to a good start with the old city hall & courthouse - sitting empty, too. Wonder if they're gonna let them deteriorate to collapse. ( I know the old city hall, courthouse & Berkman arent historic like the Bostwick, however, they're 3 more abandoned, neglected buildings on East Bay Street)

Quote from: bornnative on August 29, 2012, 02:51:48 PM
Timkin, I would agree with Pinky that the level of work necessary to mothball the structure is almost certainly beyond what a volunteer crew could accomplish.  We're not talking about sweeping and clearing debris - the building needs some serious structural mitigation (plus the aforementioned roof) to even get to a point of medium-term physical stability.  It speaks to the integrity of that old building style that the walls are even still standing now...a building built in today's method/style would probably have already collapsed if it were placed under the same stress.

They don't build them like they used to, and soon we'll only be able to learn about "how they used to" through pictures vs. preserved physical examples.  Very sad.

With PSOS, we look at the mothballing process in two parts really.  The part that requires licensed contractors (and insurance & etc) and the part that is perfect for volunteers.  Certainly the stabilization of Bostwick will require the proper permits (even tho -- and probably especially tho -- it is temporary).  After this is checked out by the building inspection department, then volunteers certainly could do some cleanup. 

It's a good system that works for us. 

^Unfortunately it appears the current owners of the Boswick Building are absolutely no vision and no concern about their own property.

I like your idea Ock but it ignores the financial reality of the situation.  In you're scenario, either the property owner eats the cost to partially demolish and donate the land or some entity like the city would have to purchase it for public use.

Quote from: sheclown on August 30, 2012, 09:06:52 AM

Quote from: bornnative on August 29, 2012, 02:51:48 PM
Timkin, I would agree with Pinky that the level of work necessary to mothball the structure is almost certainly beyond what a volunteer crew could accomplish.  We're not talking about sweeping and clearing debris - the building needs some serious structural mitigation (plus the aforementioned roof) to even get to a point of medium-term physical stability.  It speaks to the integrity of that old building style that the walls are even still standing now...a building built in today's method/style would probably have already collapsed if it were placed under the same stress.

They don't build them like they used to, and soon we'll only be able to learn about "how they used to" through pictures vs. preserved physical examples.  Very sad.

With PSOS, we look at the mothballing process in two parts really.  The part that requires licensed contractors (and insurance & etc) and the part that is perfect for volunteers.  Certainly the stabilization of Bostwick will require the proper permits (even tho -- and probably especially tho -- it is temporary).  After this is checked out by the building inspection department, then volunteers certainly could do some cleanup. 

It's a good system that works for us.

You've had success with 100 year old houses, now maybe it's time for a hundred year old commercial building ;)

Takes funding.  :-) 

Quote from: thelakelander on August 30, 2012, 10:47:46 AM
I like your idea Ock but it ignores the financial reality of the situation.  In you're scenario, either the property owner eats the cost to partially demolish and donate the land or some entity like the city would have to purchase it for public use.

"or some entity like the city would have to purchase it for public use."

BINGO! Hey it is our first post fire building.

Eminent domain.   The City takes the building.  Does necessary stabilization for conversion to public use.


There is a way to save the building if the right people are willing. Same held true for Worman's (too late now)

Same is true for the Trio, FS#5 , PS#4 , Jones Brothers building.

The "right people" cannot see past the end of the dump trucks and bulldozers.    Heck , in Gary, Indiana, they at least leave the buildings to crumble.  No money to save them or tear them down.  In Jacksonville , we never have money to save them but ALWAYS have money to tear them down. 

If the Bostwick Building is somehow spared, I will be nothing short of astounded.   I'm not holding my breath, because demolition almost always ends up being the end-result.

The city is already in the red.  There's daily articles in the FTU about the mayor's office and council struggling to balance it.  We can't even properly work (time-wise) with a guy who wants to build his successful local brewery downtown, much less work with a property owner who's made up their mind to rip the structure down.  I just can't imagine, COJ pulling a rabbit out their hat to spend $500 to $1 million on this structure anytime soon.

No argument here about the current 'bus wreck' and attending paralysis in both our finances and city hall. Never an original thought - never any creativity in finance = a city too dead to bury.

I don't know if you ever studied grantsmanship (though I suspect you did) but I noticed you criticize the lack of imagination in some past grant applications of our various departments and agencies. Wanna bet if we really tried we could write and win a grant for a nuclear powered fly swatter? Bet we could, right behind the idea for concrete rain! Dull, unimaginative applications for grants usually fly like a cast iron Frisbee.

Sadly, even in this economy there are literally thousands if not millions of grants written for projects with far less merit then the Bostwick, Annie or the Jax Terminal Subway.

The building can be saved and there are a lot of options to do so.  However, with time ticking on pending demolition, many (including finding, convincing and applying for grants) become more unrealistic with each passing day.

Quote from: Timkin on August 30, 2012, 01:30:36 PM
Eminent domain.   The City takes the building.  Does necessary stabilization for conversion to public use.


There is a way to save the building if the right people are willing. Same held true for Worman's (too late now)

Same is true for the Trio, FS#5 , PS#4 , Jones Brothers building.

The "right people" cannot see past the end of the dump trucks and bulldozers.    Heck , in Gary, Indiana, they at least leave the buildings to crumble.  No money to save them or tear them down.  In Jacksonville , we never have money to save them but ALWAYS have money to tear them down. 

If the Bostwick Building is somehow spared, I will be nothing short of astounded.   I'm not holding my breath, because demolition almost always ends up being the end-result.

For eminent domain to happen, in my opinion, there would need to be an idealistic, charismatic, powerful atty in the mayor's general counsel office. I don't think they have one.

That, or there needs to be some super legal nonprofit that's applying for grants as we speak. I don't think that's happening either.

Tis a shame.

There is always within the programs (federal?) like NSP and the Jacksonville Journey, money set aside for the demolition of blight.  However, in the case of the Bostwick building, it is the owners who now believe it is less expensive to demolish rather than save so the city will not have to pay a dime to demolish though the process to save it will be costly.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 30, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
No argument here about the current 'bus wreck' and attending paralysis in both our finances and city hall. Never an original thought - never any creativity in finance = a city too dead to bury.

Sadly, even in this economy there are literally thousands if not millions of grants written for projects with far less merit then the Bostwick, Annie or the Jax Terminal Subway.

^ Which begs the question, how can it be a priority to make a grant possible on something that may or may not fail while historic buildings like this go down without a thought?

Who is in charge and what are they thinking?

will it cost millions to STABILIZE the exterior of this building so that it could be utilized in some way? or still less expensive to demo.  ( Think I already know, but am asking anyway )

Reminds me of my Okie roots.

2 gents sitting on the front porch of a farm house, staring at a dark sky with a wall cloud hanging low... The wind is REALLY kicking up clouds of dust, mixed with large hail stones.

"Earl? Tornado's coming."
"Yup. They do that Bubba"
"Earl? This one appears to be a big one."
"Yup. It looks just like the one that knocked down old momma Smiths house."
"Earl? Lookie yonder, there goes the neighbors barn."
"Yup. This twister's getting bigger, I think I see 3 vortex' in there."
"Earl? Reckon we ought to go in the house."
"Nope, we ain't never been hit yet."

Oh God! Now I know why I feel a such a kinship  with Jacksonville's genius leadership. We're off to see the wizard... no on second thought, can't do that, thats in Kansas.

Quote from: strider on August 30, 2012, 07:40:40 PM
There is always within the programs (federal?) like NSP and the Jacksonville Journey, money set aside for the demolition of blight.

Exactly what I do not understand.  The building needs a ton of money spent on it ,no question. But a blight?  Not visually,at least.

*shrug ..

I have little doubt it will be removed.

Wouldn't it be great if Shad Khan stepped up and bought it and fixed it up? To me it would be a great fire museum dedicated to the 1901 fire, sponsered by the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

Quote from: Timkin on August 30, 2012, 11:16:28 PM

Quote from: strider on August 30, 2012, 07:40:40 PM
There is always within the programs (federal?) like NSP and the Jacksonville Journey, money set aside for the demolition of blight.

Exactly what I do not understand.  The building needs a ton of money spent on it ,no question. But a blight?  Not visually,at least.

*shrug ..

I have little doubt it will be removed.

Blight is the wording they use.  I agree, it is not blight to me either.   Common sense says it is better to save the buildings, and in fact, the law says it is the city's duty to save historic buildings, but that seldom stops this city or in particular, the head of MCCD, from demolishing buildings.

It is very interesting that the paperwork MCCD sends out to notify a new owner that the building they just got is condemned and must be repaired or demolished states that the city can repair the building if you, the owner, do not.  Even though the head of MCCD always says they can not repair, the paperwork she must have approved says otherwise.  Imagine if the hole in the roof had been repaired rather than MCCD just sending out letters trying to convince the owners to demolish. Not only would that have been a big plus for the community, but less expensive for the city in the end.

Quote from: Pinky on August 31, 2012, 07:44:27 AM
Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

Right on, Pinky.  I'm in.  If we had 100 preservationists who would contribute $5000 each we could buy the building and stabilize it, landmark it and apply for preservation funds from the city.  How about 1000 people with $500 each?  It can be done.

I'm surprised the city has not declared it unsafe, and issued an emergency demo order.  I honestly think it is too little, too late, but miracles do happen.  The fines from the city should have been many years ago, when the roof started to leak, when the interior was is good order. 

Quote from: Miss Fixit on August 31, 2012, 08:46:19 AM

Quote from: Pinky on August 31, 2012, 07:44:27 AM
Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

Right on, Pinky.  I'm in.  If we had 100 preservationists who would contribute $5000 each we could buy the building and stabilize it, landmark it and apply for preservation funds from the city.  How about 100 people with $500 each?  It can be done.

Not me kiddo - I think it should be torn down, and I have much better things to do with my time and money.  I'm just tired of all of these hand-wringers moaning about how somebody should do something to save all these buildings.  If it's such a compelling cause, cowboy-up and do something.  Talk is cheap.

This is an intriguing idea. Maybe a non-profit can be set up, all donated money goes to that entity to help buy the building and secure it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will be the first to donate $500. I really dont want to see the building torn down and the lot left vacant.

fwiw, past indications regarding this property are that the City would likely set aside the accrued fines if a meaningful buyer and plan can be put forth to mitigate the structural decay AND redevelop the building.  They have seemed less than willing to set aside the fines solely after a change in ownership unless there is a real plan - and actual funding - for re-entering the building into productive stock (read: tax producing).  Establishing an entity, nonprofit or otherwise, to buy the building is only half the battle.  I've put money into this already...some of it I still have, some of it I won't get back, but if someone can take the lead, I'll be second in line behind fsujax to send in a check and share lessons learned from past experiences with this structure.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-08-30/story/good-bye-jaguar-historic-jacksonville-building-could-be-slated#ixzz258zMeMlS

1)  "Val Bostwick, whose family has owned the site since the 1800s, (underline mine) said the family can’t afford a restoration and would love to see the 7,650-square-foot building sold to someone who would preserve it."
 
I of course know nothing about the Bostwick family finances, but wish the roof would have been repaired when it was a small issue.  Then at least it would be easier to save. 

2)   "But with no real interest from anyone at a reduced price of $325,000 and daily fines since springtime stacking up, they filed for the demolition permit this month." 

As much restoration as this building needs, $325,000 seems pretty high.  It may be the land value alone, but to save the building that means so much to them, maybe the family could consider donating it or reducing it further, should someone with an interest and funding come along.  I know.  Easy for me to say. It's not my money.  Just a "what if." 

3)  "Owners asked for a demolition permit after the city started fining them $100 a day because of its deteriorated state."

Help not hinder.  Another case for losing the fines, which do nothing to save buildings, but instead cause the demolition of buildings.  Same reason the Wormans decided to demo a 100-year-old building, I believe.  But I could be wrong about fines for Wormans.



Oh...and I can ill afford $500, but if enough people are up for it, and my $500 will help make it happen, I'll scrounge it up some way.

Do a Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/

Quote from: fsujax on August 31, 2012, 09:43:29 AM
This is an intriguing idea. Maybe a non-profit can be set up, all donated money goes to that entity to help buy the building and secure it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will be the first to donate $500. I really dont want to see the building torn down and the lot left vacant.

I don't have $500.00 presently to put up for it, but Id gladly donate.  Time and labor effort.  I think the non-profit idea is stellar, but under the circumstances, I do not see it buying the Bostwick building any time, if the owner / city wants to see it taken down.

Quote from: John P on August 31, 2012, 02:58:27 PM
Do a Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/

Great idea

Kickstarter technically can't be used for non-profit or "cause" contributions. There are other, similar, services though that may.

How would a $500 deal work, MissFixIt.?

Quote from: Pinky on August 31, 2012, 07:44:27 AM
Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

^ About to embark on a non-profit.  Have been doing the labor deed for quite some time.   The preservation-minded have been at work ---not just talking.    So when you seem unwilling to help, I don't quite get your point?  If the owner is unwilling to try to save their own building (Which is and has evidently been the case for quite some time, otherwise it would have a roof and not now be a failing building) SOME ONE ELSE HAS TO :). 

When the City is supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening, BUT STILL lets it happen, the ordinance is useless, and so too , is the people attempting to enforce that, by waiting till the damn thing is about to collapse to put pressure on the owner to do something.

A home owner CANNOT get away with it... so why can the owner of a commercial building?

One can say we are trying to direct the owner on how to spend their money.  No we can't .  but the City can , and mysteriously does at the 11th hour.   There is a great deal wrong with that logic.

Now , even if the owner would donate the property (which is not going to happen) some entity would have to be on hand immediately with a lot of cash to immediately take care of a problem THE NEGLIGENT previous owner would not take care of.

If the owner has not had the means to do anything with the building but will sit on it , let it deteriorate to the point that it now is a hazard, not only are THEY negligent but so is the City for not, ages ago , MAKING them either fix it, sell it , or DONATE IT to someone who can.

Again here, 10 years ago even , this could have been much more easily prevented.  Now it will be so costly it is only worth it, to a very small group who really cherish the few pieces of history allowed to remain... and those numbers are dwindling pretty rapidly too.

It hilarious that someone would state to "cowboy up" and put our money where our mouth is , when they would not lift a finger to help because they do not care.  I don't have the money .. I do have the time and can help labor wise.  That is better than sitting here condemning those of us who would like to save these places.

I can put 100 in now.  Not 500 now.

I don't recall "condemning" anyone for their desire to help; I was addressing those who seem content to complain and hope that someone else (in this case Shad Khan) will step up and fix problems. 

"I don't recall "condemning" anyone for their desire to help; I was addressing those who seem content to complain and hope that someone else (in this case Shad Khan) will step up and fix problems.  "

Quote from: Pinky on August 31, 2012, 07:44:27 AM

Not me kiddo - I think it should be torn down, and I have much better things to do with my time and money.  I'm just tired of all of these hand-wringers moaning about how somebody should do something to save all these buildings.  If it's such a compelling cause, cowboy-up and do something.  Talk is cheap.

No.. that doesn't sound like you're "condemning" anyone... but you're apparently tired of "hearing it" so why are you even on the thread venting about something you don't care about , nor would put your time into , or your money?   Why does it matter to you IF we approached Mr. Kahn or someone else with some money to help the cause? How exactly does that affect your life?

If not for Wayne and Delores Weaver, another beautiful landmark , The John Gorrie, would not be renovated. By now it too would probably be trashed and condemned.  That one by the way was far from an inexpensive tab.  They did it probably knowing they would never turn a profit, so thank god, for them , for their love and support in historic preservation , and for  people with means.  I wish more of us had them. I wish more of us cared and wanted to get our hands dirty and wanted to dig and search and beg for a way to save these places because they ARE important to some of us.  Unfortunately we are outnumbered by the "I don't give a damn's.   It is a depressing though that we live in a City where it seems the powers that be will not rest until anything and everything that is historic or significant is only available in a photograph.  nothing physically left. We can't have that! God forbid!   :)

Your opinion is welcome , has been heard and so noted.  So since this subject is of no interest to you, please go voice about something you DO care about  on a thread where you don't have to listen to "hand -wringers" vent about  something you have no interest in... I mean, does that make sense? Why waste anymore of your precious time? OR OURS for that matter .  :)

You're very right that talk is cheap. I personally, and many here do not sit on the side lines and do nothing but sit and complain. That you conclude this must be how it is , is short-sighted.  I don't think you care enough to take a closer look.

I AM doing something.  :)  Many of us are.  You state we are just hand-wringers and I take issue with that statement because, most importantly it is completely untrue.  I have to keep reminding myself that this is not a subject of interest to you. You want the building gone. You stated so..end of discussion.

It IS VERY DEFINITELY a compelling cause to some of us to see this one and every single one of them we can ,saved and put to some practical use. 

This one probably wont be saved.... largely in part ,because the people that care are far outnumbered by those that do not and would never be bothered to get their hands dirty , or help in any way, AND they are tired of hearing us.  We have a City run totally ass-backwards, an ordinance to protect these places, that is not honored in any way, shape, form or fashion,  and an MCCD with a sick, twisted passion to demolish everything in sight they deem ready for the bulldozer. It leads me to think they might get kick-backs from the demolition companies, so keep those condemn notices coming , but hey, that is mere speculation on my behalf.

yeah...well someone has to wring those hands might just as well be us. :)

We also need to write in to the Historic Preservation Commission, who will review the demo permit, and let them know our feelings that the building is too important to lose. The owners sound like they may be willing to work with us, but that asking price for the building is ridiculous.

Yes, it comes up in this month's meeting.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 01, 2012, 09:19:05 AM
We also need to write in to the Historic Preservation Commission, who will review the demo permit, and let them know our feelings that the building is too important to lose. The owners sound like they may be willing to work with us, but that asking price for the building is ridiculous.

Tacachale.... Have you personally spoke with the owner?  Just curious.

I'm in for $500.  What would the non-profit do with the building?

Quote from: dougskiles on September 02, 2012, 08:28:04 PM
I'm in for $500.  What would the non-profit do with the building?

How about the idea Ock suggested for the building?  Stabilize the walls, make the interior a park space(?)  Fountains , Park Benches,  Gardens . 

Or... assuming it was made a whole building again, divide the space into 6 or 7 suites, sort of like the Elks Building is... but for non-profit organizations.  ( just a thought) 

What about a Bank branch there? ( assuming a non-profit acquired it, saved it , then sold it)

just tossing ideas out .   

Not that it isn't fun to talk usage, but with 4-5 pledges and about $2000 pledged so far, we who want to save this building may want to concentrate on finding the other 995 people to chip in $500 each before we start deciding on what's to be done with it next.   :)

To be a serious contender, there would need to be some pretty serious "stuff."

1.  A volunteer with the time and talent to run the new non-profit.  Downtown Jacksonville Historic Preservation?  It would be great to move on to other endangered downtown historic buildings after this one, but you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. Still the non-profit could advocate for historic preservation downtown.

2.  A big, stong presence at HPC to speak for preservation.  The more people who turn out, the better. Since HPC starts at 3:00, those who can't make it during the work day can send emails.  If you can come at 5:00 or 6:00, mention in the email you will be attending later, and ask to be heard when you can get there. I find the HPC is often willing to wait until the later arrivals can get there and weigh in if it's an important item like this.

3.  Providing the demo permit is denied, the work begins.  A citizen's petition for landmark status, fundraising, RFP's, etc.  Generating interest in the city, newpaper articles, TV stories, etc.

4. Need a talented fundraiser/grant writer to volunteer. 

The Bostwick family has kept the asking price for this building too high for many years.  Now, even with a much lower asking price, it is still too high.  It would cost more to tear the building down than they are asking for it so the value is essentially zero.  They should give it away or the City should take it for the fines.

I've had that exact conversation with COJ, about why they don't take at-risk structures for the fines and stabilize them, with Robin Lumb and Jason Teal, probably others I can't remember. The City has a real hangup about not wanting to be a landlord, they don't want to take on the liability and responsibility, they see that as a bigger downside than demolition. Which I find very shortsighted, but I guess everyone's entitled to their viewpoint. Maybe this should be one of those "public-private partnerships" Alvin Brown is always blathering about, have COJ stabilize it and put a lien on it, or take an ownership interest, rather than allowing yet another historic demolition in an already hard-hit area.

I think you have made some headway with Robin Lumb.  He brought the Bostwick building issue up in the middle of a conversation about something else.

The City could end up with a LOT of historic properties if they took them routinely, but major, historic, high visibility buildings like the Bostwick are on a different level.

It's a fair point that the city shouldn't want to become a landlord, especially for the vast majority of properties people don't take care of, but much more needs to be done in the case of historic structures.

^ Agree Completely.  They are special, and dwindling in numbers.   And bulldozed as though we will never run out of them.

If the city just used MCCD to mothball structures, then the deterioration and the blight would be addressed.  Additionally, the city would save money b/c it is usually cheaper to mothball then to demolish.  Additionally, it is more likely that a mothballed property will become a tax generating parcel than a vacant lot will be.

So yes.  It is unreasonable to expect the city to take on all historic properties and given the level of care they give to the properties they now own, perhaps that is not even desirable.  However, the city could say to negligent building owners...mothball it, or we will, and then lien it.

Quote from: sheclown on September 03, 2012, 05:46:30 PM
If the city just used MCCD to mothball structures, then the deterioration and the blight would be addressed.  Additionally, the city would save money b/c it is usually cheaper to mothball then to demolish.  Additionally, it is more likely that a mothballed property will become a tax generating parcel than a vacant lot will be.

So yes.  It is unreasonable to expect the city to take on all historic properties and given the level of care they give to the properties they now own, perhaps that is not even desirable.  However, the city could say to negligent building owners...mothball it, or we will, and then lien it.

^ Which is where groups like Preservation SOS and my group at Annie Lytle could help the City/Community by maintaining the mothballed buildings.  It saves the City money they would have to expend doing maintenance/mowing/etc. 

There is a way to make this work if we could get the City on board, and they do not have to be a landlord to be on board with helping to keep these places and mothball them.

Saw Terry Lorince at lunch downtown today, she said the public hearing for the demolition of this building is on the 26th, not quite sure of the time, I will look it up. She said she needs people there to speak in favor of preserving the building. She is looking to groups like MetroJacksonville, TransforJax, etc. to speak out. Please go if you can.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to create the non-for-profit group? not sure what all it entails, maybe if we can show some action on this effort it can be used an argument to save the building.

The JHPC hearing on the Bostwick demolition permit begins at 3pm on September 26th.  I'm not certain where this item will be on the agenda.