Losing Springfield Plastics
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2457569947_JmQqpNp-M.jpg)
Springfield Plastics, built in 1922 and located on small commercial strip of Pearl Street, has become a building in need of protection. Its story is the same with many commercial properties in Springfield -- once proud structures which provided jobs and products for the neighborhood, now stand vulnerable and in danger of being lost.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-apr-losing-springfield-plastics
Whatever's left of mom & pop (that hasn't been shipped overseas for pennies on the dollar), policies like this deliver the fatal blow.
I guess they'll still making room for that Starbucks & Panera. Any day now, guys.
There certainly are better ways to deal with issues like these. Just as there has been a great deal of help mothballing house, this should be no different. The goal should be to keep business, not run them into the ground, and be the final blow.
If the city can't identify the specific issues that need to be resolved, other than 'entire structure' they are not doing their job. This is stupid. There should be a specific list, along with priority, and along with what would be necessary to keep the business running or open as repairs are being made.
Years ago I was building a large greenhouse, and had all of the wind load, and structural information. No one in the building department could ever tell me specifically (like a check list) what additional was necessary to get the permit issued. Back and forth between departments, you need this, now you don''t go here, go there, etc. I finally paid a general contractor friend of mine over $250 to get it worked out.
This situation is too much like the earlier issues with many other properties in Springfield that were condemned for a leaky roof, or other minor issues.
Really sad.
This is ridiculous. Entire structure. Really code enforecment?!?!
If the rot is at the windows I suspect he has water intrusion issues. If the wall "bows" structural issues. If he has a fabrication shop in the lower level and a residence in the upper level I suspect he has usage code issues and fire rating seperation issues. He needs an architect/engineer to define the problem(s) and recommend solutions. Expecting the city to do that will cause problems not solve them.
Having not been involved with code violation issues, I would have thought the city would be specific, rather than vague. I wish Springfield and the owner the best of luck.
Tom is filing an appeal this afternoon. He is asking for 60 days to make repairs. He is also asking for a specific list
What is so remarkable about this building that it needs to be saved?
What's so remarkable that it must be condemned and torn down? From what I can tell, there are a few factors in its favor for not bringing out the wrecking ball.
1. It's a part of the historic mixed use building fabric of Springfield.
2. It appears to also have a viable long time local business in there with the potential of housing above it.
3. On top of that, it appears the owner wants to find a way to save the structure.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2013, 03:45:04 PM
What's so remarkable that it must be condemned and torn down? From what I can tell, there are a few factors in its favor for not bringing out the wrecking ball.
1. It's a part of the historic mixed use building fabric of Springfield.
2. It appears to also have a viable long time local business in there with the potential of housing above it.
3. On top of that, it appears the owner wants to find a way to save the structure.
If the walls are buckling, the building is in bad shape and a potential hazard. The hearing allows the owner to address these issues.
No reason the property cannot stay mixed use.
Why should your second point save the building from condemnation? What should that matter?
Of course the owner wants to try to find a way to save the structure. Who wouldn't. Why has he not taken action to date?
My point is why talk demolition. That seems like a last resort after all other avenues have been addressed and appear unfeasible. It doesn't seem like we've gotten that far already.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2013, 04:09:18 PM
My point is why talk demolition. That seems like a last resort after all other avenues have been addressed and appear unfeasible. It doesn't seem like we've gotten that far already.
What are the other avenues?
Perhaps, fixing the buckling wall? That's cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding the entire structure from scratch.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2013, 04:14:51 PM
Perhaps, fixing the buckling wall? That's cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding the entire structure from scratch.
Can the owner afford to do it? I figured that was the point of issuing him a notice - fix the damn building you own.
So if he can't fix it, pay more to tear it down?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2013, 04:19:46 PM
So if he can't fix it, pay more to tear it down?
I'm fine with the City fixing it, but they need to take the building from the owner and sell it to someone who can afford to maintain it.
Megatron, that is the final solution, most certainly. However --and ideally from a neighborhood perspective-- it would be best if Mr. Metz were able to get some help fixing up his home and his plastics shop. Some people have offered to help and Preservation SOS will do what we can. We'd like to help this little piece of Springfield, struggling as is often the case, stay open and stay viable. Who knows. We will see what tomorrow brings.
As a contractor, I have looked at this building. The structural issue, the bulge, a couple of rotten 2x4's covered with stucco, is a days work. The vast majority of electrical issues are because the suspended ceiling was removed in parts of the second floor. MCCD's write up makes the building sound ten times worse that it is.
At issue, in my opinion, is that the MCCD inspector, is not qualified for the job he has taken on. He can not know what the structure is, he doesn't have the qualifications. He can not know what the value is, he isn't a commercial appraiser. Yet he writes it up as bad as he can to , I assume, cover his ass and perhaps because it's what the division chief requires of him. This does nothing to truly protect the public safety and certainly does nothing but make life harder for the owner of the building. It also prevents the sale of the building, by the way, because once condemned, it has no value.
This is just bad policy making on the part of the head of MCCD. Ms. Scott needs to review what is really going on here and start getting her people helping the city and it's property owners instead of trying to scare them into submission with yet another condemned and unusable building.
Quote from: strider on April 15, 2013, 06:20:30 PM
As a contractor, I have looked at this building. The structural issue, the bulge, a couple of rotten 2x4's covered with stucco, is a days work. The vast majority of electrical issues are because the suspended ceiling was removed in parts of the second floor. MCCD's write up makes the building sound ten times worse that it is.
At issue, in my opinion, is that the MCCD inspector, is not qualified for the job he has taken on. He can not know what the structure is, he doesn't have the qualifications. He can not know what the value is, he isn't a commercial appraiser. Yet he writes it up as bad as he can to , I assume, cover his ass and perhaps because it's what the division chief requires of him. This does nothing to truly protect the public safety and certainly does nothing but make life harder for the owner of the building. It also prevents the sale of the building, by the way, because once condemned, it has no value.
This is just bad policy making on the part of the head of MCCD. Ms. Scott needs to review what is really going on here and start getting her people helping the city and it's property owners instead of trying to scare them into submission with yet another condemned and unusable building.
Well said. +1
Tom has filed an appeal asking for two things:
1.) 60 days to complete the necessary repairs
2.) a list of specific repairs
We will see what happens next.
If he cant maintain it then he should sell it just like everybody else. I was told it is a wreck inside but that was over a year ago
I thought I had read in the main article that the owner has some serious health problems - that can eat up your bank account in one bite. With all due respect, since this is also his home, (and please forgive me but I can't tote the barge and lift the bail anymore myself), couldn't some of you wonderful Springfielders and/or someone like Builders Care or the City agency that helps the elderly homeowners do something to save his home? The man needs help and is probably too proud to ask. He probably isn't feeling too hot, either. LOVE one another.
He needs help cleaning out the space, organizing it, etc. If you are good at that sort of thing, PM me. We have some help arriving soon -- the more the merrier.
I wonder why is this a front page feature? A person cant maintain his building so it gets condemned until he can fix it. What is the issue? This is not uncommon. Everybody has a reason of some kind.
Everyone needs help for different things under different circumstances. Some folks have the ability to help themselves, others with the help of family, others with the help of complete strangers. Once of the nicest things about Springfield is a lot of peeps look out for friends and neighbors and a lot of Springfielders help out those in need simply because it is the right thing to do.
I prefer (and it is the crux of PSOS) to live my life paying it forward under the Golden Rule. Plain and simple.
We are helping Springfield Plastics to the best of our ability through our volunteerism. We are supporting the process of the appeal, helping to clean out the downstairs, and working to generate some income through a variety of means to keep this Springfield business afloat and help a neighbor in need.
"Love each other or perish†― W.H. Auden
Quote from: John P on April 16, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I wonder why is this a front page feature? A person cant maintain his building so it gets condemned until he can fix it. What is the issue? This is not uncommon. Everybody has a reason of some kind.
Because its not "condemned until he can fix it" as you've reframed it, the reality is that for whatever reason in Springfield they wind up getting demolished, and the vast majority of folks are sick of it. You're obviously the exception. But this isn't about the owner, it's about the building.
You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. We can all be in a position to help. If you don't want to, please get out of the way, and stop chastising those that can and do help others for the sake of the whole community.
I am so glad to know that there are people in this world that do not want, or need the help of others, but many of us do, and appreciate it. Springfield is a very unique community.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2013, 08:13:37 AM
Quote from: John P on April 16, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I wonder why is this a front page feature? A person cant maintain his building so it gets condemned until he can fix it. What is the issue? This is not uncommon. Everybody has a reason of some kind.
Because its not "condemned until he can fix it" as you've reframed it, the reality is that for whatever reason in Springfield they wind up getting demolished, and the vast majority of folks are sick of it. You're obviously the exception. But this isn't about the owner, it's about the building.
I know a poor guy on beach Blvd that could really some help with his property. His wife has cancer and he lost both children years ago in a accident. He cannot afford much to fix it up either. wheres the big story to help him?
There are lots of opportunity, especially these days.
right here John.
All it takes is someone to care -- and you do!! Marshall the forces and get it done.
I went with Tom Metz to the appeal hearing in front of the Building COdes Adjustment Board on his condemnation. To say it was a deck stacked against us is an understatement. We, of course, lost the appeal and so the building is officially condemned and Springfield Plastics is shut down, maybe effective tomorrow. It was an enlightening meeting.
For the record, we were simply asking for a period of time to do the repairs BEFORE it was moved to the next step and the power cut, ETC. I even had stated right up front that Mr Metz had need a kick to get going on the needed repairs. This was about time and keeping a business alive, not avoiding fixing a building that really does, and is getting, repairs.
A couple of points, MCCD does not have to really condemn for a specific item. Once they see one or two things, they can call it the entire building. And that will stick and quite possibly become a floating benchmark. For instance, I said I was pulling a permit to fix the original issue - the bulge in the wall, and of course, the damage resulting from that. I was told that wasn't enough, the entire building had to be fixed and it could take months to do it. When I asked for specifics, Nelson Baird said that it wasn't his job to make up a work order for me. I said that it used to be not stated as "all" or "entire" but this window or that door that was at issue. He said not his job to specify repairs, it was my job. But of course, as stated earlier, whatever I said I was going to do was not enough. Ergo, floating benchmarks.
Some on the board also seemed to think that a building in such "terrible shape" does not have the protections of the historic designation. I had to argue that it was even protected at all - apparently hearing that all contrubuting buildings within a historic district have protections went unheard. In fact, one of the board members was shocked I got a COA for the repairs. "They gave you one?" he stated in amazement, obviously very convinced by someone it wasn't historic. Or at least, didn't deserve a COA so it could be fixed (he did state he knew I had to get one though), which I though was the point of all this anyway - fix the building. By the way, someone drove the Chairman by the building earlier today and he said after the meeting that was how he knew how bad the building was. Baird making sure he got what he wanted?
Electrical issues were a big thing. Once stated, it became the main worry that a fire or something could be caused. Even though I got the point across that all of the issues were on the second floor and the power was off, it was still a "public safety issue". I am realizing that that is a very dangerous phrase. Lots of bad things can be done in the name of "public safety". Most recently, the shutting down of a man's livelyhood in the name of...
Speaking of the man's lively hood, Mr Metz's stated for the record that he needed income from the now growing again business to fix the building. I stated that PSOS was getting the community involved and that the permit and structural work was being done. The chairman made it official and stated for the record the board had no indication that the work would get done at all. I guess he wanted to be sure he was right and stood fast in his believe Tom Metz's business had to be shut down to help insure his proclamation would come true.
MCCD and this condemnation system has to be overhauled. As it now, all it does is hurt people. One of the board members said "Mr Metz, this is really for your own good." I spoke out of turn and said "Not if he loses his business because of it."
At one point someone tried to insist on an engineers report before the work was done. Apparently, even though this was the board that makes recommendations about the building codes, having the building code say I could simply replace like with like isn't good enough for this self professed professional architect/ engineer. I then said why don't we wait until the permit is pulled, the work done and passed by the Building Department, wouldn't that say it was done right. By the way, the answer was no. He did move on to something about the rest of the building though. Still wanted that engineered drawing too. I asked as I didn't need that to legally do the required work, would MCCD/ this board pay for it. I got asked, why should they? I said maybe because I didn't need it by law and hey, since the law says they can repair if the owner can not, they should help owners that can not help themselves. I got told I was getting off subject.
A couple of times, two of the board members did make suggestions about maybe just condemning part of the building and allowing Mr. Metz to continue his business, but Nelson Baird and the Chairman squashed those ideas pretty quickly.
Bottom line, it is for "public safety" that the building is condemned. MCCD would feel just terrible if someone got hurt. Besides, the Chariman thinks it won't get fixed anyway ....
Typical MCCD and their minions - hinder at all costs.
The one positive point was Nelson Baird stating for the record no more demolitions in Springfield unless by very obvious emergency - like you could actually blow the building down. Wonder why that is?
Wait until MCCD gets a load of what happens next.
Thanks for going. Are there any engineers on the review board? Has any of the members looked at the house first hand?
Very interesting indeed...I've heard of Special Master hearings to address repairs that are required, but have never heard of the Building Code Adjustment Board. What exactly is this Board and why wasn't Mr. Metz given an opportunity to fix the building after being cited? Was this his first MCCD citation?
When MCCD uses terms such as "all" and "entire" then they damn well SHOULD state specifically what that means, otherwise how is a property owner supposed to know what MCCD is requesting be fixed? Nelson Beard is once again trying to bully his way around - like he did when he "demanded" access to the interior of my houses (which I declined) and threatened to get a warrant (for which they had no grounds).
These MCCD people are not contractors or engineers. What exactly are their qualifications to be making these type of decisions? And does the city ordinance really give MCCD this much power without ANY TYPE OF PROOF?? Sounds to me like MCCD's decision to condem this property is based purely on opinion and not fact.
Very sad indeed....
I am curious about the data.
How many appeals have been heard and denied?
100%?
What's the vendetta?
I am glad to hear the continued "no more demos in Springfield" however what they did and said today was crap. They are not judge and jury. The owner shows up with contractor and is denied? Not even given 30 days? Where is this policy of practice written? Or are we talking fly by the seat of the pants practice?
Thanks to some great folks in the community along with Mr.Metz' family for rallying around him, and this great building!
In the recent past the upstairs has been utilized as creative space, largely painting, steadily by a few successful local artists, and occasionally by others passing through. I am very excited for Mr.Metz and perhaps the necessary repairs will be the needed good in the end.
Disheartening to hear someone who is trying to do the right thing and comply while being spoken down to with such condescension.
Nevertheless, one thing Mr.Metz has is a huge heart and moreover this building IS worth saving and is NOT beyond repair.
With the arrival of the candy shop down the block a couple doors this area holds even greater potential with the increased traffic.
Strider, email me your phone, or get my # from Tom.
Call me, text me.
Let me know what I can do to help.
Tom had substantial structural work done a little while back. He is currently reaching out to the structural engineer who worked with him then to see if he can help out.
Any updates on this? Has this owner lost use of this for work and home?
As of May 9th, Mr. Metz lost the right to continue his business at that location. The power was cut a few days later. He is lucky to have the right to enter it at all. MCC makes it very difficult to even do what they themselves ask of the owners, repair the building.
At this point, he is confused, as are many owners who find themselves dealing with Municipal Code Compliance. He gets conflicting information from us, from MCC and even from the engineer he hired. Few of the engineers I have dealt with seem to understand the nature of working on a Contributing Historic Structure and MCC doesn't want to nor do they make the distinction. Meanwhile, Mr. Metz's family is doing what they can to help and we are waiting for everyone involved to figure out what they want to do.
This is so outrageous it makes my head spin. I have recently moved to Jacksonville, and I am so disappointed by this. I have just joined the Preservation SOS and hope that there may be some way I can help out.
Quote from: m74reeves on June 08, 2013, 09:19:14 AM
This is so outrageous it makes my head spin. I have recently moved to Jacksonville, and I am so disappointed by this. I have just joined the Preservation SOS and hope that there may be some way I can help out.
Welcome to PSOS m74reeves!!! You will find it both frustrating and satisfying at the same time. Look forward to getting to know you.
An interesting bit of information. On May 29, and I think not received until yesterday, Tom was also cited for " The above Referenced property is cited as an unsecured/ unguarded vacant building and therefore is a nuisance violation of the local ordinance." I just find it interesting that Mr. Nelson Beard found it necessary to cite a building because it is vacant BECAUSE HE CONDEMNED IT. He also mailed it to the condemned and now vacant building. He did use one of the buildings other addresses however, so perhaps that makes it all OK?
really sad. Another Historic building without a chance. :'(
That's the issue really. The behavior and methods used by Ms Scott and her staff do nothing but intimidate and cause the eventual loss of hope. What possible reason did they have to add a citation for a building being vacant onto a building they caused to be vacant except further intimidation? And intimidating the owner for what reason? To insure another building comes down? And why can a city employee and her staff get away with that? It is hard not to ask how they are profiting from all this.
Was this forwarded to Councilwoman Daniels? Or anyone else, for that matter? One more document to offer as proof that this department is disconnected from reality and not firing on all cylinders.
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 06:02:14 PM
Is it only me that is fearful of Kim Daniels being the person that is becoming the figurehead for this historic home/building situation?
You gotta love Jacksonville!
Quote from: strider on June 19, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
The above Referenced property is cited as an unsecured/ unguarded vacant building and therefore is a nuisance violation of the local ordinance.
I don't think there is any question how I feel about MCCD. However, I believe the citation was issued because the building was unsecured/unguarded AND vacant. Just my two cents worth.
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/e4d530ae-72bd-4223-9d70-860ae00e6358.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/e4d530ae-72bd-4223-9d70-860ae00e6358.jpg.html)
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 19, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.
Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.
Huh?
Hitler made the trains run on time, and resurrected the German middle class.... Just saying.
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 09:57:54 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 19, 2013, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 19, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.
Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.
Huh?
"Kim Daniels is horrible, but the REAL issue here isn't the fact that she is ignorant."
The above is a quote from you about a year ago regarding Kim Daniels and the anti-discrimination legislation that she opposed.
I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that you now think she is wonderful.
So what's your point? Obviously it's not one in which people will give credit, when it's due. That's exactly what sheclown was doing. Thanks for doing what you can to be negative... :o
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Emerson
Daniels has the chutzpah to go where no councilman has gone before.... up against code enforcement. And I respect her for doing that.
Relax apache. I'm not jabbing you -- laughing at the irony that is constantly Jacksonville, for sure.
She seems to relish headlines more than issues. As soon as she realizes there are no headlines with a code enforcement fight, she will drop you guys for support of a KKK museum, or some such foolishness. Don't trust crazy.
Like her, hate her, Ms Daniels is indeed an elected council person. While it is certainly our responsibility as tax payers and the voting public to criticize bad behavior of our elected officials, it is perhaps even more important to reward good behavior. To do less is counter productive and simply unwise.
However, this isn't about Ms Daniels, it is about a powerful Municipal Code Compliance department and chief that few seem willing to even question. Who seems to get away with lying under oath, ignoring laws they themselves try to insure others follow and being disrespectful to all whom they interact with. Ms Daniels is elected and so is at risk of being voted out. Ms Scott, wielding more power and perhaps behaving far worse than Ms Daniels ever has, can not be voted out. She has already survived a new mayor's restructuring and the Office of General Counsel seems to often protect her bad behavior. Her department can do more harm in a week than Ms Daniels can in her whole tenure.
Sometimes it isn't the devil you see you have to worry about, it is the one sitting in the the shadows.
For some reason the old military recruiting poster, the one with uncle same point his finger, saying I Want You comes to mind. Only this time, it is Kimberly Scott, and the text is I want your Historic building demolished.
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.
Quote from: Apache on June 20, 2013, 02:45:10 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on June 20, 2013, 01:18:41 AM
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 09:57:54 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 19, 2013, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 19, 2013, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 19, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.
Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.
Huh?
"Kim Daniels is horrible, but the REAL issue here isn't the fact that she is ignorant."
The above is a quote from you about a year ago regarding Kim Daniels and the anti-discrimination legislation that she opposed.
I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that you now think she is wonderful.
So what's your point? Obviously it's not one in which people will give credit, when it's due. That's exactly what sheclown was doing. Thanks for doing what you can to be negative... :o
My original point is quite simple. In my opinion, Kimberly Daniels appears to be a fool.
That opinion seems to be one that many, seemingly respected, MJ posters, including sheclown, agree with, according to their own posts on previous Kim Daniels topics.
My secondary point, is that it appears pretty hypocritical to me for sheclown to be, seemingly, critical of me by her direct response to my original post.
I posed the question:
Is it only me that is fearful of Kim Daniels being the person that is becoming the figurehead for this historic home/building situation?
Sheclown responded:
You gotta love Jacksonville!
I would say thats a pretty clear jab directly at me, so I responded.
I don't think it's a big deal. Call me negative if you wish. I was responding in kind. We can get back on topic now I guess.
One day, it's likely that you will sit back and wish it wasn't Kim Daniels that is on your side on this one.
It wasn't a jab at you, it was clearly a comment on how Jacksonville (as a whole) works, which is generally against anything positive and many times, embracing the worst
Quote from: John P on June 20, 2013, 09:53:39 AM
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.
Circa 1922
Zone as: Mixed Use Residential/Store/Office
It's a lovely old building inside both top and bottom.
Tin ceilings downstairs.
Two huge apartments upstairs.
"Coded" Historical.
And even if it were not coded that way, John P, it's an old building that needs to be saved. When they did the historic district, they failed to "code" the commerical buildings on 8th and Main as historic, but that doesn't mean many of them aren't of the same vintage as the rest of the neghborhood. "Coding" them on a piece of paper doesn't affect their age or history one way or another. Similarly, Durkeeville isn't "protected" as an historic district, but many of the homes are just as old. Note I put "protected" in quotes, because our city does not do it's utmost to protect its history, even when required to by law.
Quote from: iloveionia on June 20, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
Quote from: John P on June 20, 2013, 09:53:39 AM
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.
Circa 1922
Zone as: Mixed Use Residential/Store/Office
It's a lovely old building inside both top and bottom.
Tin ceilings downstairs.
Two huge apartments upstairs.
"Coded" Historical.
Yeah, same argument used by Code and the Building Adjustment Board's "engineers", not historic so no protections. Except that Iloveionia is correct and it is indeed historic and indeed has those protections.
You used to be able to tell from the property record card:
REC LUSE DESC ZONING FRONTAGE DEPTH UNITS TP ACRES PRICE AJ REASON AJ PRICE VALUE
1 0169 SFR HISTORIC MISC S CRO 50.00 70.00 50.00 F .08 600.00 DP 456.00 22800
The example for 1948 Pearl is above. If that line says it is Historic, it is a contributing structure.
The city had the steeple on Main St as part of a non-contributing structure (on the wrong building). They don't know, and don't care. They will use any excuse.
A Historic district, is just that, an area, not individual buildings here and there.
I have been involved in the permitting process for this repair for over two months now. It is a process that has been very tedious, very enlightening in a way and as basically been sending me in circles. A meeting last week did finally get things moving forward again, but there are huge hurdles left to get past. There are huge issues with the way things are handled because MCC is involved and in how MCC is requiring various codes to be interpreted. It makes it next to impossible to repair a building like this once it is condemned.
One thing I find very interesting is that once again, a person new to the conversation was told that this building was not a contributing structure. It is indeed contributing and frankly, I am getting tired of correcting the city on this one. This time, I went to the Historic Department and got it in writing.
Why am I wondering if that will be good enough? That one designation is one of the most important factors that effect the permitting process. Without that designation, this building will be soon on it's way to the land fill because the designation triggers things that make the repair of this building affordable enough to get it done.
But someone keeps telling the people involved that it isn't historic and does not have those protections. Makes one wonder who it is that wants this building gone?
Quote from: strider on September 08, 2013, 08:44:39 PM
Makes one wonder who it is that wants this building gone?
And I think equally important is why? What could that piece of dirt be good for with that building gone? On that corner? What gives?
This building is contributing. It was picked up in the 1985 survey, see 1948-56 North Pearl Street on SHEC
Just an update. We did finally get a permit (took 3 months) and along the way learned a lot. It is a risk the city and MCC takes when they become obstructionist, we have to go learn the codes perhaps better than they do. Structural repairs are underway and the first inspections passed. On to windows right now. Financial concerns will keep it moving a bit slow perhaps, but it is getting done.
This week we did something else new. We got a mothballing Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to mothball the two second floor apartments. This is a first for a mixed use structure and it was not met with positive energy on the part of Municipal Code Compliance. The rep walked up and stated NO Comment on the mothballing but did make a point of stating that they knew our goal is to get the first floor out of condemnation and in use again while the second floor remained Mothballed, and then stated that MCC would never allow that to happen. Nice. But what do we expect from a department that refuses to follow federal guidelines and puts millions of federal money at risk? They obviously consider themselves above all of us so what is right and what the actual ordinances and building codes say means nothing to them.
I was also handed a package of paperwork that was not included in the required report. It was copies of the various building permits and e-mails about the mothballing. It also came out that the department heads were involved and asking questions about this little COA. This is a bigger deal than what it would seem to be. It is helping to set a precedent that commercial spaces can be mothballed and it is another jab at the power MCC has over the historic structures.
As a side note, three MCC employees were there for an hour plus on the tax payer dime. One spoke for 1 minute tops and after the vote, all three left. Great use of their time, Kim Scott. What did you tell them to put on their time cards, 1 hour at attempted intimidation? It didn't work by the way, the mothballing is legal and is approved. Wait until you see what we do next.
Great update!
Please add pictures. Glad to hear about the success of this. It is very positive to see.
I'll add some pictures of the work when I get a chance. Not much to look at now as it is just repaired framing. The big change will be when the front windows go back in.
The mothballing actually helps with the issues a lot as the windows on all sides on the second floor need attention and so being able to board them rather than totally fix them keeps this phase affordable. After all, MCC did close down the mans business that he needs to afford repairs.
To be honest, the biggest challenge to date and ahead of us seems to be getting the city to act on what the codes really say and mean rather than what MCC wants them to say and mean. Very frustrating.
This IS indeed happy news!
Joe, Gloria, Kathy, Kevin, Tom, you all are deserving of the peace and excitement this hurdle in the rearview provides.
May I offer to help reglaze the upper sashes?
That's awesome of you, ricker.
I am certain that YOU ALL have done SO much more than I have to actively help save Tom's life and sanity.
I love the man.
PM me please and let's exchange digits.
Looking forward to getting my hands dirty!