At approximately 7:45 last night at HPC, at the request of Preservation SOS, the commissioners voted unanimously to "nicely ask" MCCD to stabilize the gable on the house located at 129 E. 2nd Street. It was a rehab job that had apparently been abandoned, and the gable was left inappropriately propped up with a 2x4, which wasn't enough to support it. This doesn't have the power of ordinance. It was just a "nicely ask" kind of a thing, asking them to help stabilize the historic home.
Kim Pryor, on behalf of Preservation SOS, who were there to support this request (among others) read aloud the section of ordinance 518 that gives MCCD the authority to do so, and the commissioners voted to ask MCCD to do it.
The head of MCCD, Mr. Praedo (sp?) strode up to the podium (I could practically see smoke coming out of his ears) and tersely told the commissioners MCCD was going to seek emergency demolition of 129 E. 2nd Street. Angela S (I love her) said, "Well, we can still write the letter, can't we?" And they voted to do so.
In a speed at which I have NEVER seen a city agency work, this historic home was demolished THIS MORNING! Hours after our HPC voted to simply ask MCCD to stabilize it, which I again add, city ordinance gives them the authority to do, instead MCCD demolished the home. Is the speed at which this happened a slap in the face to local preservationists who have been fighting so hard to save our historic homes? When it could have been stabilized? Not saying so, but it makes me wonder.
People were taking pictures. They will be posted shortly, I'm sure. They are already on Facebook.
This was a familiar site on my my bike ride!
Disheartening as it is, you all have done so much good and I know you're not ever going to give up, but I'm Still so sorry for the discouragement heartache and intense frustration and dismay!
Posting these for Jaxunicorn
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295058_10201093323722410_1311110719_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575914_10201093324202422_1087670172_n.jpg)
green house gets a better view.
Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.
I am prosaving houses is historic areas and all but not all of them can realistically be saved. There should be a criteria or standards or soemthing. .
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM
Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.
Infill
There are standards.
Ask MCCD, and they will tell you they are not structural engineers. I know this because I asked Elaine Lancaster at a meeting if she was a structural engineer, and she said no. I've heard them say at HPC that a house is unstable, but since they are not engineers, I don't know how they can say that with authority.
They will say a house should come down because it has "been in the system for 10 years." The house could be structually sound, although not pretty, but because it hasH "been in the system 10 years" it is demolished. I've heard that before at HPC, and that's exactly what Mr. Praedo said last night about 1481 W. 6th Street in Durkeeville (Or maybe referring to 5th and Myrtle they just demolished owned by same sisters. I forget which.) He said it was in the system for 10 years, and he had no confidence it would be re-habbed. This will be in the minutes. I'm not making it up. A contractor looked at the Myrtle St. house, and said the foundation was stable. So it doesn't have to be unstable. It can just be that MCCD has decided it should come down because there are code violations that haven't been resolved for a long time.
By current ordinance, without changing any laws, MCCD has the authority to stabilize houses instead of demolishing them. They have just refused to do it.
By current ordinance, without changing any laws, COJ has the authority to take homes from people who are allowing them to sit and deteriorate. They have just refused to do it.
Those are the facts, without comment on how I may feel about it.
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM
Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.
Infill
First, there are already about 200 vacant lots in Springfield for infill housing. We don't need any more infill housing. And second, you are just trying to rile me up, so I'm done responding to you now. :-)
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Infill
Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood.
Preservation.
Save the houses.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:38:33 PM
There are standards.
Ask MCCD, and they will tell you they are not structural engineers. I know this because I asked Elaine Lancaster at a meeting if she was a structural engineer, and she said no. I've heard them say at HPC that a house is unstable, but since they are not engineers, I don't know how they can say that with authority.
They will say a house should come down because it has "been in the system for 10 years." The house could be structually sound, although not pretty, but because it has "been in the system 10 years" it is demolished. I've heard that before at HPC, and that's exactly what Mr. Praedo said last night about 1481 W. 6th Street in Durkeeville. He said it was in the system for 10 years, and he had no confidence it would be re-habbed. This will be in the minutes. I'm not making it up. A contractor looked at the house, and said the foundation was stable. So it doesn't have to be unstable. It can just be that MCCD has decided it should come down because there are code violations that haven't been resolved for a long time.
By current ordinance, without changing any laws, MCCD has the authority to stabilize houses instead of demolishing them. They have just refused to do it.
By current ordinance, without changing any laws, COJ has the authority to take homes from people who are allowing them to sit and deteriorate. They have just refused to do it.
Those are the facts, without comment on how I may feel about it.
+1
You are correct with your facts. Thank you Debbie.
We asked the city to help is save this house. The city said EFF you
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
We asked the city to help is save this house. The city said EFF you
Precisely.
Quote from: Apache on May 23, 2013, 05:26:57 PM
What is the solution when a historic home will likely never be "worth" or valued monetarily at the cost it would take to restore it? We all know that's the case, and the problem, in many if not most of the cases.
Well, living and restoring in a historic neighborhood is different. It does cost more money if you want to truly restore. If you are rehabbing, I see not much of a difference with building new and rehabbing a gutted home. I've done it and rehabbing/restoring (I mixed both) afforded me a 1,000 sq ft bungalow, all new systems for $75,000 (including purchase price). This home I purchased gutted with no systems for $20k So IMHO, cheaper to rehab than build new. Plus, old wood is better wood. These gals fight to come down, as did 2nd street today. As sheclown states, this was simply and "EFF you."
If any out there can't see it then you're not opening your eyes; this was a blatant "I'll show them" from Ms. Kimberly Scott, Chief of MCCD. A very "high school bully" type of response. It has never been more evident that Ms. Scott has been promoted way above her competency level.
Sec. 518.151. - Emergencies.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Chapter, when, in the opinion of the Chief, an emergency exists which requires immediate action to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants of a property, the Chief shall take that action which he deems appropriate to abate the conditions which threaten the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants. The action may require the purchase of materials and labor adequate to render the property temporarily safe. When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted. In these cases, the Chief may order repairs to be made and the occupants to vacate the property immediately, as the case may be.
For purposes of this subsection, the circumstances supporting the determination that an immediate threat exists to the life and safety of the occupants and/or the public are those which would justify the entry of an emergency ex parte injunction, without notice, in a Circuit Court proceeding for abatement of a public nuisance. The exercise of this authority is not intended to be routine, but shall be reserved for those instances in which advance notice is impractical and the threat to public safety constitutes a true emergency.
Electrical service shall not be terminated except in those instances where the electrical service itself presents an imminent danger to public safety or where the risk of spark or explosion is present.
The mere existence of a code violation for a failure to secure permits shall not justify an order to vacate under this subsection. In those circumstances, the Chief may initiate any enforcement process authorized by law to correct any such violation.
Quote from: iloveionia on May 23, 2013, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Infill
Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood.
Preservation.
Save the houses.
if it is nationally recognized, what is your recourse when the city does this?
QuoteE07-26894.000 129 2ND ST E TSRM 5/29/2007 FINALIZED Residential O/H Temp Pole
B07-24939.000 129 2ND ST E 5/17/2007 SUSPENDED Residential Single Family Alterations & Repairs
B03-69528.000 129 2ND ST E 12/30/2003 EXPIRED Residential Apartments Alterations & Repairs
E01-25926.000 129 2ND ST E 5/24/2001 FINALIZED Residential Transient, Hotel, Motel, Rooming House Existing Building
E93-47693.000 129 2ND ST E 11/12/1993 FINALIZED Residential Single Family
E90-47097.000 129 2ND ST E 12/27/1990 FINALIZED Residential 3 Or 4 Families Existing Building
The above are the official permits listed in the city data base. You will note that there is no permit for today's demolition. (FYI, when we pull and pay for a permit(they are not active or official unless they are paid for) it shows up certainly within hours if not immediately). As a contractor, if I had done that, the license would be in jeopardy. Mr. Daniel Grump(?), the city paid MCCD supervisor at the site today, at first told us that there was a permit, then, when confronted with what it indicated on-line, simply referred us to Ms Scott. It seems to me that Ms. Scott thinks she and her department are above the law.
I know, but it was an emergency! NOT! It has been the way it was for several years. It was in need of additional bracing at the front porch roof, but it was not going to fall today or tomorrow. They certainly could have waited to do it legally (24 hours?) and yet, why should they when Ms Kimberly Scott thinks she is better than all of us and her and her minions do not have to obey the law. Remember that we have video of one of her employees breaking and entering. Remember that we have minutes of Nelson Baird stating for the record that MCCD would not be demolishing any historic houses in the protected historic district of Springfield unless you could literally blow them over.
This was nothing but a very well paid department head being a 12 year old bully. And doing so at great tax payer expense. What do you think it costs to call up a demo contractor and have them show up the same morning?
Is there any doubt that Ms. Scott does not care one bit about us tax payers or what anyone else thinks. Seems like it is past time for a new chief of MCCD, does it not?
Quote from: strider on May 23, 2013, 08:03:17 PM
QuoteE07-26894.000 129 2ND ST E TSRM 5/29/2007 FINALIZED Residential O/H Temp Pole
B07-24939.000 129 2ND ST E 5/17/2007 SUSPENDED Residential Single Family Alterations & Repairs
B03-69528.000 129 2ND ST E 12/30/2003 EXPIRED Residential Apartments Alterations & Repairs
E01-25926.000 129 2ND ST E 5/24/2001 FINALIZED Residential Transient, Hotel, Motel, Rooming House Existing Building
E93-47693.000 129 2ND ST E 11/12/1993 FINALIZED Residential Single Family
E90-47097.000 129 2ND ST E 12/27/1990 FINALIZED Residential 3 Or 4 Families Existing Building
The above are the official permits listed in the city data base. You will note that there is no permit for today's demolition. (FYI, when we pull and pay for a permit(they are not active or official unless they are paid for) it shows up certainly within hours if not immediately). As a contractor, if I had done that, the license would be in jeopardy. Mr. Daniel Grump(?), the city paid MCCD supervisor at the site today, at first told us that there was a permit, then, when confronted with what it indicated on-line, simply referred us to Ms Scott. It seems to me that Ms. Scott thinks she and her department are above the law.
I know, but it was an emergency! NOT! It has been the way it was for several years. It was in need of additional bracing at the front porch roof, but it was not going to fall today or tomorrow. They certainly could have waited to do it legally (24 hours?) and yet, why should they when Ms Kimberly Scott thinks she is better than all of us and her and her minions do not have to obey the law. Remember that we have video of one of her employees breaking and entering. Remember that we have minutes of Nelson Baird stating for the record that MCCD would not be demolishing any historic houses in the protected historic district of Springfield unless you could literally blow them over.
This was nothing but a very well paid department head being a 12 year old bully. And doing so at great tax payer expense. What do you think it costs to call up a demo contractor and have them show up the same morning?
Is there any doubt that Ms. Scott does not care one bit about us tax payers or what anyone else thinks. Seems like it is past time for a new chief of MCCD, does it not?
What do you expect from someone with a BS in Political Science and a Masters in Public Administration?
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: iloveionia on May 23, 2013, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Infill
Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood.
Preservation.
Save the houses.
if it is nationally recognized, what is your recourse when the city does this?
Strider says it best. The Chief of MCCD Kimberly Scott is allowed to do what she wants and her minions follow the script she has instructed them to perform. Chapter 518 is written allowing her
opinion to supersede everything. Everything meaning contractors, engineers, architects, historic experts, you name it.
Recourse? The owner of the property could have recourse. The neighborhood organization (if it actually cared about preservation) could likely have recourse. It my opinion, based not on fact (yet) that something was awry prior to today with this property. I'll leave it at that for now.
Kimberly Scott, Chief of MCCD needs to be removed from her position. Period.
Quote from: carpnter on May 23, 2013, 08:17:13 PM
Quote from: strider on May 23, 2013, 08:03:17 PM
QuoteE07-26894.000 129 2ND ST E TSRM 5/29/2007 FINALIZED Residential O/H Temp Pole
B07-24939.000 129 2ND ST E 5/17/2007 SUSPENDED Residential Single Family Alterations & Repairs
B03-69528.000 129 2ND ST E 12/30/2003 EXPIRED Residential Apartments Alterations & Repairs
E01-25926.000 129 2ND ST E 5/24/2001 FINALIZED Residential Transient, Hotel, Motel, Rooming House Existing Building
E93-47693.000 129 2ND ST E 11/12/1993 FINALIZED Residential Single Family
E90-47097.000 129 2ND ST E 12/27/1990 FINALIZED Residential 3 Or 4 Families Existing Building
The above are the official permits listed in the city data base. You will note that there is no permit for today's demolition. (FYI, when we pull and pay for a permit(they are not active or official unless they are paid for) it shows up certainly within hours if not immediately). As a contractor, if I had done that, the license would be in jeopardy. Mr. Daniel Grump(?), the city paid MCCD supervisor at the site today, at first told us that there was a permit, then, when confronted with what it indicated on-line, simply referred us to Ms Scott. It seems to me that Ms. Scott thinks she and her department are above the law.
I know, but it was an emergency! NOT! It has been the way it was for several years. It was in need of additional bracing at the front porch roof, but it was not going to fall today or tomorrow. They certainly could have waited to do it legally (24 hours?) and yet, why should they when Ms Kimberly Scott thinks she is better than all of us and her and her minions do not have to obey the law. Remember that we have video of one of her employees breaking and entering. Remember that we have minutes of Nelson Baird stating for the record that MCCD would not be demolishing any historic houses in the protected historic district of Springfield unless you could literally blow them over.
This was nothing but a very well paid department head being a 12 year old bully. And doing so at great tax payer expense. What do you think it costs to call up a demo contractor and have them show up the same morning?
Is there any doubt that Ms. Scott does not care one bit about us tax payers or what anyone else thinks. Seems like it is past time for a new chief of MCCD, does it not?
What do you expect from someone with a BS in Political Science and a Masters in Public Administration?
One would hope an individual that cared about others and treated them with the same respect they themselves would ask for. I have never seen that quality in Ms. Scott. She has done nothing but come to meetings unprepared and gone on the defensive at the drop of a hat. Signs of someone being way over their heads and trying to hide it. Just FYI, if she were to be removed as Chief, she would most liekly be able to go back into the ranks as she was promoted from within, IE, she would still have a job.
Sec. 518.102. - Legislative intent and findings.permanent link to this piece of content
(c)
There is a need to create a mechanism to bring most abandoned properties into productivity. Abandoned properties constitute a burden on city's resources and a waste of valuable city's assets. The city has concluded that the rehabilitation of abandoned or neglected properties is an important city objective.
(Ord. 96-458-297, § 1; Ord. 2006-1363-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-732-E)
Sec. 518.103. - Applicability.permanent link to this piece of content
(e)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, if a structure sought to be regulated is a landmark or contributing structure located in a historic district, such regulatory efforts shall be tailored to have the least intensive impact on the structure while still furthering the intent of this Chapter.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12174
In thinking about this situation, we do have to give Ms. Scott some credit. She was at least smart enough to know she had a lot of power made available to her and that she actually chose to wield it. It is just unfortunate that she choose to wield it badly.
The ordinances that give her that power were, according to someone in the General Council's Office, over the DART issues â€" IE, drug related crimes and the difficulties in proving and prosecuting those crimes. DART was, whether by choice or accident, also a great way to get rid of legal businesses you may not like, for instance, rooming houses. MCCD was given a lot of leeway to help facilitate the DART process. It was quickly interpreted to be much more.
Many may not remember that one has to get permission from MCCD to enter their own property if condemned by MCCD. As you might guess, not being allowed into your own property makes it a bit tough to repair the issues it was condemned for. MCCD has in the past denied entry to owners, with the result of ignoring them being the threat of arrest, though most often they simply made it very difficult on the owner by only giving permission in 10 day increments. Largely through public outcry, they most often give at least thirty days now. By the way, also per a source in the Office of General Council, the purpose of that part of the ordinance was to give police the authority to arrest the possible drug dealers and users illegally using a condemned property, not denying the rights of the owners. However, as MS. Scott has the power to interpret, she decided it would be OK to have property owners arrested for being on their own property.
This is a department out of control. One would hope the Mayor's office would see that and perhaps eventually, they will. Meanwhile, it is up to the HPC to protect the Historic Districts from MCCD and up to the public to protect everyone else. We do that by making it uncomfortable to MCCD to exceed common sense and to make it public when they do. When they act like a bully, they need to be called out. When they ignore the very laws they are supposed to help support, they need to be called out.
Perhaps the HPC can find an ordinance to wield against Ms. Scott. After all, if Ms. Scott has the power to fix something on a historic house and does the opposite, can she not be held as being as guilty of demolition by neglect as the actual owner? In the case of this 2nd Street house, she could have had her department add bracing to the front porch years ago and chose not too. She is just as guilty of causing the loss of another important historic structure as the owner is.
And we need to work with the city council and the Mayor's office to make permanent changes to the ordinances so the we end up with a MCCD that actually helps people instead of harming them. That helps protect the Historic Districts, as they are actually charged to do now by ordinance, rather than demolishing them.
Am I understanding this correctly: a duly appointed board of the city, JHC, passed a motion stating that the city should take the necessary (and minimal) steps to stabilize a house but instead the city's employee (who was fully aware of said action) directed the building to be demolished the very next morning?
If that is a correct description, why does this person still have a job? Does she serve at the Mayor's pleasure or is she civil service?
BTW, did the property owner oppose demolition or support it?
Quote from: vicupstate on May 23, 2013, 09:07:45 PM
Am I understanding this correctly: a duly appointed board of the city, JHC, passed a motion stating that the city should take the necessary (and minimal) steps to stabilize a house but instead the city's employee (who was fully aware of said action) directed the building to be demolished the very next morning?
If that is a correct description, why does this person still have a job? Does she serve at the Mayor's pleasure or is she civil service?
BTW, did the property owner oppose demolition or support it?
Yes. HPC made the REQUEST. They don't have the authority to require MCCD to do anything. Code's response was, nope, we are taking the house down via an emergency demolition. As equivalent as throwing up their middle fingers.
I emailed the property owner two weeks ago but did not receive a response.
I have also sent two letters prior, but no response.
QuoteRecourse? The owner of the property could have recourse. The neighborhood organization (if it actually cared about preservation) could likely have recourse. It my opinion, based not on fact (yet) that something was awry prior to today with this property. I'll leave it at that for now.
What is the purpose of the neighborhood org if it is not towards preservation? I grew up in a historic district in Memphis and the org basically was concerned with preservation and safety and that's about it.
Apache, if you can find a nicely renovated 2 story, 2000 sq ft house for $70k then that's a helluva deal. Most are going for between $75-$100+ sq foot, depending, these days.
To your point - you are correct. The current policy has not produced positive results.
Working to change that.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 24, 2013, 08:20:48 AM
Apache, if you can find a nicely renovated 2 story, 2000 sq ft house for $70k then that's a helluva deal. Most are going for between $75-$100+ sq foot, depending, these days.
To your point - you are correct. The current policy has not produced positive results.
Working to change that.
Furthermore, you can get a mothball ready (or mothballed already) house for free in some cases and in other cases for well under $20k which is less than the appraised value of the lot now on 2nd street.
Condemned houses are still a good investment.
Doing it with an eye to economy, making smart choices, you can rehab for under 100k in most cases. Get the house for free, put in 100k, select your own kitchen and bath, and you have a "new" old house to your specifications.
Not a bad deal.
Throw in historic tax credits, with a little paperwork and you can shave 20% off of your rehab costs. Don't need tax credits? You can sell them.
For lack of $1000 repair, the city spent $10,000 to demolish, clogged up another section of the land fill. Scattered lead based paint into the ground, and made a dozen house-hugging preservationists cry.
In fact, one PSOS member begged to salvage the porch columns and was denied even this little token of the house's past.
Think about that the next time a press release comes out from the city about sustainability.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 24, 2013, 08:20:48 AM
To your point - you are correct. The current policy has not produced positive results.
Working to change that.
Which current policy are you speaking of Bill?
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 11:12:25 PM
What is the purpose of the neighborhood org if it is not towards preservation?
Excellent question. Bill?
I would also think there would be more investment, if folks knew that the houses around them would stay put. Who wants another La Villa, or downtown vacant parking lots that used to be vibrant areas. A historic area, should be that, an area, not bits and pieces here and there.
How much infill is expected? SRG and others are gone. I never quite understood why they thought they could get $600K for a house anyway..
- The current policies concerning vacant and neglected houses.
- Depends on the org. SPR has numerous.
- How much? Depends on the market, I guess. 3 single family and 1 multifamily are under way now. We'll see.
Apache has for more eloquently stated the issue that I have been pushing. The system in place right now obviously does not offer the necessary incentives to entice folks into taking the chance on rehabbing an old house. Mothballing is a good start as is temporarily saves the structures while the system is revised. However, there must be a plan to rehab the house after mothballing.
Literally hundreds of million of institutional dollars are pouring into Florida right now buying up distressed property. While I am not sure the type of investment is a positive one, the money is out there.
I admire everyone's dedication to the cause. I really do and I want to see this preservation movement succeed. But there has to be a plan post-mothball for these structures.
I know that when a ship is damaged it can always be repaired but sometimes it's determined to be beyond economic repair and it gets scrapped. Is this true of buildings, too? I'm not being obnoxious. This is a real question.
Perhaps a public records request regarding the communication between Kim Scott and Chris Farley is in order.
Whether the house should or should not have been demolished is, IMO, not as big an issue as the city suddenly deciding that an emergency demolition was warranted. It would not surprise me if you could find a dozen properties in much worse condition and in need of demolition than the house that needed the "emergency" demolition.
I'm sure there are properties the city owns that could be demolished.
Process
1) Fine/Lien the Property Owner for some period of time
2) After some time, if no effort is made to pay or repair, Condemn the property
3) After some time, City takes the abandoned property
4) City auctions the property with a deed restriction against demo and that renovation must begin within 6 months
5) Have 2 auction periods, 1st is for Owner Occupants only with no Investors allowed to bid, if no Owner Occupant wants it then Investors can bid.
The earlier process that was listed, is a good start, but the city insists on ending it at step two, where condemn and demolish are at the same time.
Apples and oranges. As long as an historic home can be stabilzed and saved, the value, both historic and monetary, of said home has potential. Maybe someone who can do it themselves may come along and fall in love with the possibilities of the house. A vacant lot, well, you can build a new house, but not an historic house in an historic district. New houses, that's what Mandarin and Nocatee are made for.
No I dont think so. New construction fits in well in historic area if it is done right. Thank god there is new construtcion finally going in on Lydia street. Those lots have been emopty forever.
Preservation SHOULD prevail.
History is desicrated in Jax not embraced.
I disagree vehemently that: "The current mothballing ordinance, while assisting some distressed owners, does not address deterioration; in fact, in some instances it may promote neglect."
Some schooling on the ordinance is clearly needed. The intent of mothballing is to protect the home from the weather elements and bad people elements. Mothballing removes blight. Mothballing means the house is safe and won't fall down or apart (as if this was a possibility, it was fixed.) Mothballing preserves a home while the owner has 3-6 years to bring the home to habitability. This 3-6 years, provided you are adhering to the original COA (monitoring and rehab plan) keeps code enforcement off your ass. The end outcome of the mothball COA is to earn the Certificate of Occupancy! Virtually every discussion about mothballing overlooks this fact! Owners who give a shit and need the time, mothball. Having mothballed seven homes in Springfield, I know what's up. The end goal is the Certificate of Occupancy!
Sheclown posted a few pages ago about Chpt 518 where it clearly states code has the ability to maintain safety WHILE preserving our history, but they refuse. REFUSE! Code is not on the side of preservation, and if you ARE a preservationist, you shouldn't be talking with code. I learned my lesson a few years ago.
While there are several organizations in Springfield, there is only ONE recognized neighborhood voice. Oh, PSOS' voice is loud and clear, but we are not the neighborhood organization. Not then, not now, not ever. I have zero understanding of how one can live in a Nationally Recognized neighborhood and advocate for the demolition of our homes when clearly there are other options.
Save the damn houses already. Gheesh.
http://www.youtube.com/v/_0fZK3HxS7s?version=3&hl=en_US
Quote from: John P on May 24, 2013, 05:56:49 PM
No I dont think so. New construction fits in well in historic area if it is done right. Thank god there is new construtcion finally going in on Lydia street. Those lots have been emopty forever.
once EVERY existing house is occupied, then there's a call for new construction. until then, there's no excuse. empty lots and full houses are far better than slapping a genuine imitation new old house on every empty lot you see while existing houses stand vacant.
What is clear from the video - as we have seen time and time again - is how difficult it is to tear down these supposedly rickety and dangerous structures. The balloon-framing is amazingly strong, which is why these houses have stood for so long and which makes mothballing the logical and clearly superior alternative.
Instead of a few hundred $$ worth of lumber to brace the porch, our government elects to spend thousands of our tax dollars on an unnecessary demolition. I find that deeply offensive on many levels.
I realize that there may need to be some tweaking, rewriting or what ever you want to call it, of the codes and the mothball legislation and what ever applies. But I don't think any of that is our main problem. The problem as I see it is a rogue department and director who absolutely refuses to help in any way shape or form. Someone has to have the mayors ear and can get to him. Kim Scott should be removed from her job and an outsider brought in to rework this rogue department.
Apache, what I know I have learned from this forum and also MySpringfield.org. Although I do have personal experience with code enforcement, it was not all unfavorable and did not drag on for an unbearable amount of time, but then again it was in another neighborhood.
There are numerous threads that you can read about MCCD (code enforcement). Is it all one sided? For the most part, I would say so, but in my time on this forum I have learned that most of the players here are fair and will give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing view. Much of what I have learned about MCCD and how they think is from reading minutes from meeting that have been posted here. If you have time to search and read through some you may come to an understanding your self.
The fact is, the same legislation that enables MCCD to destroy a home also enables them to do minor repairs to homes to eliminate a perceived problem. i.e. this case where it was requested that a gable be stabilized. Now I am not an engineer, contractor,ore even a carpenter. But I have enough experience to know that it would have cost considerably less to stabilize then to destroy. And this has been the case in numerous demolitions through the years here in Springfield.
From all appearances, MCCD has no desire to work with this neighborhood. And I would say that if it were not for PSOS, many more houses could have been sacrificed were it not for their intervention.
I don't know if this helps Apache. I feel I have just rambled. I may not be able to tell you why I think what MCCD is doing is wrong. I just know it is.
What I know (and there are holes for sure) is that the rules governing code enforcement changed in 2007. At that time, the city, frustrated with their inability to deal with drugs by conventional law and order and its clumsy due process, decided to make code enforcement its back door police force.
This was the DART program. (Certainly DART had been around for a decade before, but the power of code was greatly increased in 2007)
Drug Abatement Response Team (DART)
The Jacksonville 'Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) was established to combat illegal drugs in Jacksonville by supplementing the traditional approach to solving the drug problem. This program is a partnership between the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and the City of Jacksonville to focus on the property where drug activity and/or other illegal activities flourishes. By working with landlords/property owners, code enforcement strategies are developed and resources are brought to bear to reduce and eliminate crime. Actions include bringing the property up to code, as a way to deter illegal activity on the site. Perhaps a program with the best of intentions. Perhaps it did some good.
Perhaps it created a monster.
We need to re-examine the ordinance which gives code enforcement their police powers and add some safety checks to win back the public trust.
For example, this troublesome section:
QuoteSec. 518.105. - Authority to interpret; and to make, alter and repeal rules.permanent link to this piece of content
The Chief is authorized to interpret this Chapter and to make, alter and repeal rules in conformity to this Chapter he deems necessary to implement the requirements hereof, subject to the appeal process specified herein. All rules and interpretations shall be in writing and kept on file in the Chief's office.
Really...WTF?
We decided it was the property which is to blame for the crimes which occur inside of it -- and to combat this, we have given the power to determine the structural integrity of our most cherished historic properties to people trained to deal with "safety" as crime-free and not any type of building construction understanding or training.
(And let's not even talk about the rare occasions when they bring in Atlantic Engineering to rubber stamp a decision already made.)
Let's turn the drug dealers over to JSO, the properties over to the building inspection department, and code can deal with citing properties for overgrown weeds and abandoned cars.
John P, yes infill housing may be needed on EXISTING vacant lots. My point was, we don't need any more of them. Springfield has lost about 500 homes to various forms of demolition...fire, city "help" and owner request, etc....since we became an historic district. We don't need more empty lots for infill housing. We have plenty already.
^^^And clearly right now there is no demand for infill. It was my long term hope that Springfield would become a very eclectic mix of old Queen Ann/Edwardian houses and modern apartments and houses...Atlanta has done this sort of mix very well and it makes for a very desirable neighborhood that attracts a wide range of folks.
Unfortunately, I don't think the "mix" will happen anytime remotely soon, and so yes - more and more empty lots to be built on in the future, but fewer and fewer opportunities to save an original home.
The fact that these demolitions continue under NRHP jurisdiction (or local historic preservation district) is a little baffling. The whole point of historic designation is to prevent demolition or undue alterations, and to rally the preservationist troops to come in and save stuff with authoritative power. It's definitely contrarian, the demolitions, but it also seems suspect/illegal?
It wasn't all that long ago that a local developer along with the local preservation organization was helping Ms. Scott demolish house after house within the historic district. When we started asking about the federally required 106, we got told they only used "general funds" for the demolitions. Of course, we do not believe this but getting the real info has proven difficult to say the least.
If I remember it correctly, about 10% of the housing stock was lost in the 65 years prior to 1985, which is when the RUDAT study was conducted and it was used to get the historic designation. In the twenty eight years since the RUDAT study, we have lost about 35% of the historic housing stock, mostly, it appears, to MCCD triggered demolitions. The total houses lost has been put at 533, opphs, now 534, by the folks down in the city's Historical Department. That just seems, well, criminal when you think about it.
Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 03:31:00 PM
green house gets a better view.
I could see the house from my kitchen and it's very sad to see an empty lot where only a few days before stood a house that helped tell the history of this neighborhood. Now another vacant lot, it tells the story of carelessness. I was really hoping this house would make it.
Its incredibly sad that a house is razed rather than shored up and mothballed. People within the City management that make decisions like this just to prove the point that they can, makes no sense whatsoever.
The following is just a guess. Until we get the actual MCCD file on this house, we won't know for sure, however, based on past experience, I would say this is not far off base.
This house was built in 1904/ 1905 with it's first listed resident being the family of John Hubbard, then the treasurer of the J. H. McLaurin Company. It appears they lived in their home for about 6 years.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/129e2ndst.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/129e2ndst.jpg.html)
129 East 2nd St -- in its rooming house days
The house was most likely a single family home until the late 1930's when a housing shortage triggered many large and expensive to maintain homes to be cut up into duplexes and even quads.
Sometime in the fifties to later sixties, it was probably converted to a rooming house. While rooming houses are very much looked down on today, back then most were not only very much needed, they were an honorable way to make living. Not only that, it was also an early version of “adaptive re-use†as the houses were often too expensive to maintain as just a single family or even a duplex. Finding a use for the houses helped save them. Based on the values listed, this house was in good shape in the early seventies and changed hands, ending up as one of the houses owned by Betty Dortch, AKA Betty Goodyear. Permits show some updates through the years but trouble started with Crack in the eighties and values plummeted. It became harder to maintain these houses regardless of use.
By 2001, with Historic Springfield coming up in values and more and more houses being worked on, a movement to eliminate the "terrible" legal rooming houses began. The limited info I have tells me that most likely this house was closed down via DART in 2001. In an attempt at fixing the issues, a permit was pulled and money spent,-- but what we now know that the owners of these then-legal businesses didn't is -- that the deck was stacked against them.
MCCD along with SPAR and several community leaders, some of which are still here, made sure that no matter how much money the owners spent on improvements, they would never get out of condemnation, at least not for a year and a day.
In the case of this house, the owner gave up and sold it to Beverly Brooks, who still owns the house -- sorry, now just the lot. Taxes, by the way, are current. Ms. Brooks had the house gutted in 2003 for the purpose of returning it to a single family home. There were several permits pulled even as late as 2007, but work stopped in 2010. By 2011, the house was back fully in the MCCD system, a bit too late to be on the “formal track to demolitionâ€. Which is why the only legit way Ms. Scott could take this house was by an emergency.
While some will say the DART condemnation on a legal rooming house was a good thing, the end result was, more often than not, an empty house. An empty house in MCCD's system (and as we know, the condemnation process makes it much harder to fix a house). Looking back on the process, the purpose of DART was not to close down the terribly run illegal boarding or rooming houses, but always to target the legal ones. I know at least one case where an offer to buy out a rooming house business was made, but I believe it was never sincere. It was much cheaper for those that wanted the rooming houses gone to have the city do their dirty work for them.
All of this no longer matters though. What does matter is that the process of using DART to close down businesses and condemn houses started a trend that carries on today. In fact, because they learned there were limitations to the original DART ordinance (1996), they gave more power to MCCD by 2007. The loss of this house is the result of that, it is the poster child for the Abuse of Power those changes lead too.
An interesting observation is that-- while the days this house was used as a rooming house are looked down on -- it was still a livable, viable home for some. (Note the clothes on the railing in the 1985 photo). It is only after it was “saved†and being returned to its original single family use that it became an “eyesore†that even some so-called preservationists thought it had to go. It goes to show that use is everything. Not what the use is but rather that it is indeed being used. In lieu of that, mothballing is the next best thing.
The problem with DART, other than the displaced targeting of the properties for the crimes of the individuals, is that even the rationale of drug use is suspect. I mean, really, is this about drug use or about removing a social class from a neighborhood?
If it were just about drug use, tell me the difference between a person snorting coke in a half a million dollar new house and a guy smoking crack in a $20 a night room?
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2013, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 24, 2013, 01:04:22 PM
Apache has for more eloquently stated the issue that I have been pushing. The system in place right now obviously does not offer the necessary incentives to entice folks into taking the chance on rehabbing an old house. Mothballing is a good start as is temporarily saves the structures while the system is revised. However, there must be a plan to rehab the house after mothballing.
Literally hundreds of million of institutional dollars are pouring into Florida right now buying up distressed property. While I am not sure the type of investment is a positive one, the money is out there.
I admire everyone's dedication to the cause. I really do and I want to see this preservation movement succeed. But there has to be a plan post-mothball for these structures.
Megatron how many historic houses have you owned or renovated?
Two
"post-mothball plan for these houses" is that they still stand
Mothballing removes blight, safety issues and ensures monitoring
Ideally, all houses have heartbeats inside, but how do we know and predict the future of the housing market? In the meantime, we abate the nuisance and preserve what we have because the alternative means losing who we are. And in Springfield, we are a historic district.
Quote from: sheclown on May 27, 2013, 11:29:02 AM
The problem with DART, other than the displaced targeting of the properties for the crimes of the individuals, is that even the rationale of drug use is suspect. I mean, really, is this about drug use or about removing a social class from a neighborhood?
If it were just about drug use, tell me the difference between a person snorting coke in a half a million dollar new house and a guy smoking crack in a $20 a night room?
the first one pays more in taxes.
^ in theory
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2013, 07:38:07 AM
"post-mothball plan for these houses" is that they still stand
That is not a plan.
And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from. Often with barely securing the front door ?
I don't mean to discount financial hard times and the necessity of doing that but rather hope to illustrate the point that tomorrow (and the plans to deal with it) are beyond our control right now. What is in our control is making condemned homes safe and secure and removing the blight from the neighborhood. It is a brilliant strategy given to us from the city council through the hard work of Bill Killingsworth, Lisa Sheppard and Jason Teal. And I am grateful to have this tool.
Save the houses
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2013, 11:52:41 AM
And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from. Often with barely securing the front door ?
You mean that are owned by lenders? They are unloading those fairly quickly.
Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them. You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2013, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2013, 11:52:41 AM
And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from. Often with barely securing the front door ?
You mean that are owned by lenders? They are unloading those fairly quickly.
Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them. You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.
So quickly that the houses are being destroyed by neglect? Um it doesnt sound like you really know what you are talking about (again) megatron. Why not let the grown ups figure this one out?
I would expect that grown ups would have something better than mothball-and-hope-for-the-best as a plan of action.
Not sure what you have against me but I have been nothing but respectful in this discussion. I appreciate the efforts of all involved in saving these structures. I want to see it work. I simply think that the status quo is not working.
I will remove myself from this conversation. Happy mothballing.
Megatron: the expectation for mothballing is rehab of the home, to earn the Certificate of Occupancy. The COA final inspection requires a plan to get the home to habilitity. I've stated this more than once.
I see mothballing two ways: first, owner request via a COA (owner facilitates and pays of course) and second, MCCD mothballs and places a lien on the home (this as OPPOSED to demolition.)
If you read about mothballing through the National Park Service, you will learn that a home/structure that is properly mothballed and monitored can stand for sometime: the property is safe, preserved, and blight is removed. While the current mothball ordinance allows 3 years (it is renewable under certain circumstances) truly a mothballed property should remain until it can be rehabbed. How rehabbed? Current owner gets funds, home transferrs ownership, city re-visits the auctions, something along those lines.
We have a responsibility in this world to preserve our history and act sustainably.
Save the houses.
Is there a city council meeting in the future where it would be appropriate to bring this up?
I am hoping to snag one of these old girls in the next two years. I want there to be something left to renovate by the time I am in a position to!
I would rather have one of these ladies in ANY shape ANY day, than basically anything else- especially something built after 1980.
Golden: you could email any or all of the council members with your hope for preservation action in Springfield. CM Lumb is a good start, CM Gaffney represents Springfield.
I love that you would submit a speaker card at a Council meeting however to speak on preservation importance. Thank you!
MetroJacksonville, this must be a sick joke. This is the sponsored link/ad that came up on this thread.
Demolition Contractor Bid
www.HomeAdvisor.com
Don't Do It Yourself! Get Info on Home Demolition Services Near You.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 29, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
MetroJacksonville, this must be a sick joke. This is the sponsored link/ad that came up on this thread.
Demolition Contractor Bid
www.HomeAdvisor.com
Don't Do It Yourself! Get Info on Home Demolition Services Near You.
internet ads just scan for certain words; very rarely is there any kind ov context filter.
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2013, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2013, 12:24:04 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2013, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2013, 11:52:41 AM
And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from. Often with barely securing the front door ?
You mean that are owned by lenders? They are unloading those fairly quickly.
Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them. You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.
So quickly that the houses are being destroyed by neglect? Um it doesnt sound like you really know what you are talking about (again) megatron. Why not let the grown ups figure this one out?
I would expect that grown ups would have something better than mothball-and-hope-for-the-best as a plan of action.
Not sure what you have against me but I have been nothing but respectful in this discussion. I appreciate the efforts of all involved in saving these structures. I want to see it work. I simply think that the status quo is not working.
I will remove myself from this conversation. Happy mothballing.
perhaps thats for the best.
wow...
If you do not share the point of view you are not encouraged to talk
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 29, 2013, 03:13:36 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2013, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2013, 12:24:04 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2013, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2013, 11:52:41 AM
And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from. Often with barely securing the front door ?
You mean that are owned by lenders? They are unloading those fairly quickly.
Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them. You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.
So quickly that the houses are being destroyed by neglect? Um it doesnt sound like you really know what you are talking about (again) megatron. Why not let the grown ups figure this one out?
I would expect that grown ups would have something better than mothball-and-hope-for-the-best as a plan of action.
Not sure what you have against me but I have been nothing but respectful in this discussion. I appreciate the efforts of all involved in saving these structures. I want to see it work. I simply think that the status quo is not working.
I will remove myself from this conversation. Happy mothballing.
perhaps thats for the best.
wow...
well its half tongue in cheek, Bridge Troll. But only half. not everything should be a sounding board for right wing economic theories or libertarian notions of finance. While I personally sympathize with the latter.
Historic preservation is simply too important of an issue to conflate with the political arguments of the moment. The issues outlast whatever opinions we might have about economics, or finance. For example Im sure no one in this forum has the ability to give two shits about the economic or financial controversies surrounding the construction, maintenance, use, or long term issues of the Roman Colliseum, the Parthenon or the beautiful antebellum mansions of Charleston. Although I can guarantee you that none of them are without periods where the wisdom of their finances werent hotly debated for various reasons.
But only an idiot would argue that they should have all been torn down to satisfy the rigors of Kim Scott, code enforcement director of the City of Jacksonville or that they would have been properly cared for by the Real estate flipping financial scammers of Wall Street or the post Glass Steagall banking institutions of the present day.
No, Im sorry, but this is an issue that is best served by figuring out how to make it possible and easy, not by figuring out how best to turn a profit for small time operators or tax deed speculators.
Its apples and oranges and trying to reconcile the two is the exact reason that has driven the demolitions---by appealing to property value advantages for the questionable finance schemes of the very recent crop of 'redevelopers'. It just doesnt work that way and the destroyed houses prove that.
While everything you say above may or may not be true... Neither Apache nor Megatron was saying the things you seem to be attributing to them. I heard earnest questions and a few criticisms that the mothball plan... while good intentioned... does not seem to be working well. You turned into some commentary about "flipping" and wall street investors. Telling our posters that they are not grown up enough to be involved in a discussion that you are involved in seems ... well... wrong. But what do I know...
yo dawg, i heard you like quotes...
What's interesting to think about is if the banks had mothballed many of the houses I've seen "unloaded fairly quickly", the cost to make them habitable would of been substantially less and therefore, the selling price could have been substantially more. I can safely guarantee that the cost of mothballing would have been much, much less than the cost of repairing the damaged done to the basically abandoned houses.
In the case of a house being condemned mostly for social reasons - it was a rooming house - the actual damage or maintenance issue, while severe in nature, was actually an easy and not too expensive fix. The resulting harassment from MCCD which made it very, very difficult to just fix the real issues left the house sit and the resulting damage to it was many times more than the maintenance issue. Frankly, MCCD is more responsible for the neglect and resulting damage to the house than the owner. Had they done what I believe their job to be and helped rather than hinder at every turn, the house would be livable today. In this case, someone did come along and buy the house to restore and yet, you guessed it, the harassment from MCCD continues.
In fact, a home owner whose house is being talked about elsewhere on this forum asked today for permission to enter her own property and was denied. Yet she has a letter to fix it within ten days or it gets demolished. I will admit that MCCD has stated they would give them permission to enter if she came down to ask with a licensed contractor. Which I find interesting since the vast majority of MCCD officers seem to have less of a clue as to the structure of a house than most home owners do. Just read the minutes from the HPC meetings.
Mothballing is a great idea and one that should be successful. However, it's success is at least partially dependent upon a MCCD chief that cares about the citizens of the city she supposedly serves and is willing to obey the laws she is charged with following. Jacksonville does not seem to have that with Ms. Kimberly Scott.
Mothballing is definitely part of a SOLUTION, not part of the problem.
A lot of people bitch (not specifically referring to any particular person or group) and that is all they do: make noise!
Being part of the solution and not part of the problem is far more productive and beneficial to the greater picture.
Get out there and make it happen!
Helping people, places, communities within our city should be the crux of operation.
Jacksonville does none of this.
Might just as well make the middle finger the symbol of response in this city.
^ I could not agree more !
Am hoping this is an isolated incident (though my gut feeling tells me it will be otherwise) and that we can continue to save our historic places.
Ionia's second point is painfully true. The same individuals would not THINK of lifting a finger to help, however they will complain. For them it is far, far easier.
I long for the day where long-term solutions are identified for Mothballed homes and commercial sites throughout our City where "demolition" no longer an option. There surely must be a better way.
The bottom line and really sad thing is that the house on 2nd was structurally sound and should not have come down. My tax dollars were wasted. $10k to tear it down vs. $1000 to shore up the gable. The leaders have failed here. I always go back to "where is Gaffney?" He is never anywhere around when his district needs our city council leader. Failed leadership continues to allow a mismanagement of tax dollars.
Not to even bring up how unsustainable this policy is for the future. How much tax money is going to be wasted tearing down these homes in the future when mothballing is so much cheaper? How much waste to fill up our landfills? Re-build on the lots?? Yes, use a bunch of NEW materials when OLD materials were thrown out into landfills? That is supposed to make sense?? This is an unsustainable policy on so many levels. And just plain failed leadership.
I have been out of town while all of this was happening and just found out that Springfield lost another great house just a few blocks from mine. Yet another tragedy.
I have to agree with Stephen Dare and Strider on this...where are the banks/REOs and why aren't they being held accountable by the city?
The house two doors down from me has been bank owned for about 1 1/2 years. During that period a lower floor window/wall has begun to bow out nearly to the point of collapse. Has the bank attempted to repair it? No. Has the city fined the bank for allowing the house to become an unsafe structure? Of course not. They are too busy going after hard working homeowners (often of limited means) that take too long to secure a porch or use the "proper" materials.
About two or three weeks ago, I noticed that the back door to the house was standing wide open. I haven't seen anyone coming or going, so I'm not sure why it is open now. It has been reported to the bank. Have the secured the property? No. When their lawn people came last week for the first time in six months, they couldn't even bother going around back to mow the 4' tall weeds, much less secure the property or notify the bank (again).
I had a similar issue several years ago with another unsecured property nearby. When I called to inform the REO, they said that they weren't going to do anything about it. I asked if I it would be okay if I went over and secured the property for them. They greeted my generous offer with threatening to call JSO and have me arrested for trespassing. Magically, the property secured itself and is now home to a lovely couple with their first child on the way. It's amazing how much better just a little investment on the front end is--the magic fairies used about $0.50 of screws and 5 minutes to secure the property. Sometimes that's all it takes to make the neighborhood a little better.
Rant over.
Quote from: JaxByDefault on May 30, 2013, 04:10:04 PM
It's amazing how much better just a little investment on the front end is--the magic fairies used about $0.50 of screws and 5 minutes to secure the property. Sometimes that's all it takes to make the neighborhood a little better.
+1
Thank you Magic Fairy.
Quote from: avs on May 30, 2013, 02:07:29 PM
This is an unsustainable policy on so many levels. And just plain failed leadership.
Absolutely correct.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/12932nd.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/12932nd.jpg.html)
I drove by the lot today and saw Beverly outside looking at where her house used to be. She told me that she knew the neighborhood had lost patience with her for taking so long to fix up her house, but she also said that the material to brace the front porch was on site and just waiting to be put up.
She also said that she had no idea it was happening so quickly.
"Your house belongs to the demo contractor now" is what Prado told her when she asked if she could at least save the columns.
im all for preservation and all that but judging by these photos, i have to say you cant be that upset about someone coming in and taking over. it looked to be more of a safety hazard and a nuisance more than anything. how long had it been vacant?
Agreed and she had no problem getting a loan for 30k more than she paid for the house.
We have to remember this. When we berate an owner about not saving the house, we have to remember we have made the house pay the price. MCCD could have braced the porch and put a lien on the property. Or they could have removed that one piece. That's what they used to do. This house was sound. It did NOT have to come down. So fine, get mad at the owner. We still lost a house WHEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO.
Save our history. Save the houses.
City started fining three years ago
So? That's meaningless.
I was onsite when the demolition was happening and was the one who recorded it. I asked the demo contractor, Grady, if I could at least take the columns to save them and he said yes, he would ask the bulldozer operator to just push them aside. He then walked over to the bulldozer operator and to tell him to do that. When I returned to the site a couple of hours later, I approached the bulldozer operator when he came out of the machine and he started yelling at me and saying "You're nothing but a moron! I know what you want and I'll be damned if you get them!!" He proceeded to continue to call me names and said he was not going to let me take the columns because I ran up onto the property earlier in an effort to prevent the demolition. This man was mean, nasty and rude and then proceeded to pick up the columns and put them in the dumpster truck right in front of me. I almost cried...and also refused to tell me to which landfill they take the refuge. I tried to save the columns...I really did... :(
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 12, 2013, 08:17:23 PM
So? That's meaningless.
how is this meaningless? it shows that the owner neglected their responsibilities. probably bit off more than they could chew, thus the end result. people renovate and restore every day without city/county stepping in and demolishing. obviously that wasnt the case here so lets just be realistic and honest.
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 12, 2013, 08:17:23 PM
So? That's meaningless.
Sure it has meaning. If you can't convince someone, who has the materials on site, to put some 2x4's up to brace a porch in a 3 year time frame then you are going to have a very hard time convincing the City to save the house.
The problem here is that this house is located in a Nationally recognized Historic District. There should be no "convincing" the City to save the house required. They are bound by rules, regulations and law to PRESERVE structures located in historic districts, not DESTROY them! The City of Jacksonville blatently ignored their obligation to preserve this home, regardless of whether the owner did anything or not.
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on June 12, 2013, 09:51:29 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 12, 2013, 08:17:23 PM
So? That's meaningless.
Sure it has meaning. If you can't convince someone, who has the materials on site, to put some 2x4's up to brace a porch in a 3 year time frame then you are going to have a very hard time convincing the City to save the house.
The problem here is that this house is located in a Nationally recognized Historic District. There should be no "convincing" the City to save the house required. They are bound by rules, regulations and law to PRESERVE structures located in historic districts, not DESTROY them! The City of Jacksonville blatently ignored their obligation to preserve this home, regardless of whether the owner did anything or not.
Are you saying the City broke the law?
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on June 12, 2013, 10:15:03 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on June 12, 2013, 09:51:29 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2013, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 12, 2013, 08:17:23 PM
So? That's meaningless.
Sure it has meaning. If you can't convince someone, who has the materials on site, to put some 2x4's up to brace a porch in a 3 year time frame then you are going to have a very hard time convincing the City to save the house.
The problem here is that this house is located in a Nationally recognized Historic District. There should be no "convincing" the City to save the house required. They are bound by rules, regulations and law to PRESERVE structures located in historic districts, not DESTROY them! The City of Jacksonville blatently ignored their obligation to preserve this home, regardless of whether the owner did anything or not.
Are you saying the City broke the law?
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
Ok, if none of you guys will do it then, I will email Ken Amaro for you tonight. We can have this in front of all of Jax in a week and we can get this woman at MCCD fired and some heads should roll at city hall, the Mayor will be embarrassed and that should end illegal demolitions. Don't know why you guys have waited for me to take care of this.
I'm relying on you here though, as I have owned and renovated historic homes, I'm not versed in the Laws regarding demolition of them.
Apache, that would be fantastic! I'll be more than happy to provide you with any information you may need.
Apache,
Thanks for sending a fantastic email! There are a couple of issues with your details, but those can be clarified if/when Ken Amaro responds. FWIW, I brought this issue up at Tuesday's City Council meeting and Councilwoman Kimberly Daniels called me to the greenroom to discuss further.
Good job. There should be more publicity about this and the Durkeeville home. The City should be embarrassed by this and be looking at ways where they can be more of a help in Springfield redevelopment.
Tearing down structures should not be the first response.
Any response from Ken?
Any way to sue the city for this?
not to be confused with the other emergency demolition of a house on 2nd street which happened today, the pictures I will be putting on line are for this one.
The owner had pictures taken earlier and has sent them to me.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/inside129east2ndstreet1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/inside129east2ndstreet1.jpg.html)
This is work done on the inside to stabilize it.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/129east2ndst-2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/129east2ndst-2.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/129east2nd-3.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/129east2nd-3.jpg.html)
I am speechless...
I'm not, but I try not to use that kind of language in public.
Below you will find the HPC minutes for the May 22, 2013 meeting in which this house was discussed -- begins at the black line -- It is confusing to read -- follow the page numbers at the top of each box of text--
It is an agenda item in the next meeting; however, it will probably be deferred until the July meeting.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/33a6df37-5cb8-485c-bd7e-d33755dace89.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/33a6df37-5cb8-485c-bd7e-d33755dace89.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/739aa373-a576-455d-998a-ba18ba44a39d.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/739aa373-a576-455d-998a-ba18ba44a39d.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/c0d7b50a-947b-4ff2-8bd6-a21267a2e42d.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/c0d7b50a-947b-4ff2-8bd6-a21267a2e42d.jpg.html)
Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2013, 07:24:48 PM
If I remember clearly, Prado walked up to the podium, clearly pissed.
At least thats how it was related to me. Was anyone here there who can describe his comportment when he delivered his words in the transcript?
I was there. He "rushed" up to the podium without be recognized and made his statement in a very sarcastic manner. He then walked away without so much as even acknowledging any comment from the Commission (had they had a question for him). I was insulted by his crass attitude especially given that I was just up there asking MCCD help to save the structure.