I began asking questions last fall about the section 106 review process that cities must go through before alterations (and certainly demolitions) occur which involve federal funds and historic properties.
Does anyone know about this process? Is it done by the state historic officer?
How would we (or the city even) know whether federal funds were used? And if federal funds were used and the city is questioned about it, can't they just say the money was not federal?
QuoteFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Monica Landeros (904) 630-3426 landeros@coj.net
CITY CELEBRATES CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., March 29, 2013â€" The City of Jacksonville will join communities across the nation in celebrating National Community Development (NCD) Week, April 1 â€" 6. It is an annual campaign emphasizing the success, at the national and local level, of the contributions of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. CDBG is a federal formula entitlement grant awarded annually to the city through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
WHEN: Various Events from Monday, April 1 â€" Saturday, April 6
Details Below
WHERE: Various Locations Across Jacksonville
Details Below
NCD Week raises awareness of residents and elected officials to the benefits provided to the community through the CDBG programs. It also affords the opportunity to thank our congressional delegation for championing the program and to urge their support for continued funding.
Jacksonville residents have benefitted from many projects and services funded with federal grant dollars, including new streets and sidewalks, water and sewer lines, shelters for the homeless, new parks and housing repairs.
Since 1975, the City of Jacksonville has received more than $373 million in CDBG funds that have been used to develop and implement a wide-range of programs directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development and improving community services.
In fiscal year 2011-12 alone, CDBG funds, in combination with other public and private funding sources, provided for repairs to 81 homes, water and sewer line connection assistance to 69 households, demolition and clearance of 577 unsafe structures, support services to 281 small businesses, and public services that benefited more than 30,200 residents. The CDBG program provided funds for 19 public improvement projects during this period, including 10 projects completed and 9 others underway; and infrastructure improvements for Atlantic Beach Donner Park Improvements, public services for Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach.
The Housing and Community Development Division of the City’s Neighborhoods Department, administrators of CDBG funds, has planned eleven activities showcasing some of the critically needed programs and services provided through CDBG and to recognize the significant role these programs play in improving the quality of life for the citizens of Jacksonville.
The mayor says we are using federal funds to demolish unsafe structures. Is there a separate pool of money only used for historic structures? Or is this demo pool used for all? If so, section 106 needs to be happening for any of this money. As the mayor tells us, it is
combined with other public and private funding and so, needs to be reviewed.
If the City is using HUD funds like CDBG or NSP for demolition, anything older than 50 years should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation officer for review/approval. When I worked in another jurisdiction with these programs, we would not even attempt a demolition in an historic district. There may be some exceptions in the case of an emergency...but that would be like a declared natural disaster or the like. This is just a nugget of all the strings that are tied to doing demolitions with HUD funding. It would be very interesting to know if the City is using HUD funds or general funds to do this.
reeves,
The only section 106 reviews which are done are for NSP money, and not that many that I can tell.
The city says it is using "general funds" to demolish, but (as shown above) general funds seem to have federal money with it. The DART program is funded by Jacksonville Journey, I believe, and I think there are federal funds going into the Jacksonville Journey.
I know that other cities do a section 106 review, as a matter of course, on all demolitions just to cover themselves, even with general funds being used -- because there is a co-mingling of funds.
As far as emergencies go, I would imagine the federal government would like to see some evidence of an emergency situation. In the case of east 2nd Street, the Historic Planning Commission requested code enforcement take actions which would save and stabilize the structure. Code's response was immediate demolition.
After the fact, there has been little to no proof of any sort of due diligence to indicate a drastic measure was appropriate.
If general funds were used to demolish this historic structure, how can we be sure no CDBG funds, DART funds, or other federal money that may be in the general fund, were not used in this circumstance?
QuoteThe agency official must
complete the section 106 process “prior
to the approval of the expenditure of
any Federal funds on
the undertaking or
prior to the issuance of any license.â€
This does not prohibit agency official
from conducting or authorizing
nondestructive project planning
activities before completing compliance
with section 106, provided that such
actions do not res
trict the subsequent
consideration of alternatives to avoid,
minimize or mitigate the undertaking's
adverse effects on historic properties.
The agency official shall ensure that the
section 106 process is initiated early in
the undertaking's planning, so
that a
broad range of alternatives may be
considered during the planning process
http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf
QuoteDemolition and/or nuisance abatement of property safety/maintenance code violations, which contribute to severe blighting and unsafe conditions within neighborhoods and provide potential haven for criminal activity. Municipal Code Compliance Division cites unsafe structures, abandoned/junk vehicles, residential/commercial minimum building standards violations, nuisance (overgrowth, trash, debris, etc.) conditions, and vacant/open structures, which require board-up.
If owners fail to address unsafe structure and/or nuisance issues, provided funding assists with demolition and site clearance activities to correct code violations. DART (Drug Abatement Response Team): MCCD partners with core agencies Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Building Inspections Division, in addition to Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Division, Animal Care and Control, J.E.A., Community Services, and the State Bureau of Alcohol, Beverages, ;amp; Tobacco to inspect properties where reported criminal activities occur. During DART 'hits' or projects, MCCD may deem a structure as unsafe and subsequently condemn it; if negligent owners fail to correct violations, the city may ultimately arrange for abatement via demolition of unsafe structures and/or heavy debris site clearance of nuisance conditions.
http://www.coj.net/departments/the-jacksonville-journey/2011---2012-funded-programs-%281%29/dart.aspx
The permission to Demo because of an EMERGENCY under HUD rules (not COJ) would mean some kind of federally or state declared disaster, terrorist act, etc. And even in that situation, you still would have to be in contact with the SHPO. It would just shorten the review time, that's all.
One of the main uses of CDBG funds is to "eliminate slum/blight," which is why cities/counties often use it for demolition projects. However, you still have to take care of all the usual strings which are attached to government money including environmental review for projects, and the Section 106, which in Florida means having the projected reviewed by the SHPO for buildings over than 50 years old. The SHPO wants to know if the project is in a historic district.
I was trying to view the City's CAPER reports last night, which should show annually how CDBG money is spent, but I could not access any of the files. They seem to be gone from the City website?
I am bothered by how the city seems to equate demolition with crime reduction. On the City DART page, it says "working with landlords/property owners..." hmmm. not in this case. This is a slippery slope, especially in a historic area.
The City needs to give owners and opportunity to access and fix their properties. Not throw them out on the street, with no concrete idea of what needs fixing. Displacing people b/c of demolitions (I'm thinking the SPR plastics now) is just bad public policy.
I would definitely pursue how these demos are funded, but it sounds like is only just one small part of the problem with the interaction between the City and Springfield neighborhood groups and owners. I may have missed something in your prior posts...I'm new to the area, but would love a chance to talk and support preservation efforts in Springfield.
Reeves, I'm so glad you are part of this discussion and have joined PSOS.
A small snap shot of background -- that ten years ago, a developer from Atlanta came to Springfield to "save it from itself." A part of this "salvation plan" was to demolish the blight and build new. He came with pockets full of money which he spilled on the local organization SPAR (to the tune of 100k a year or more), the district councilman, and who knows who else. He put his people on the code enforcement board and was instrumental in getting policy and ordinance changes to help demolish structures. During the years that followed, Springfield lost on an average of one a month. As it stands right now, Springfield has lost over 530 structures or close to 1/3 of fabric -- and all of this occurred after it was declared a historic district.
And, it took too long for the average Joe to figure out the houses were being destroyed-- even longer to figure out it was the neighborhood which was doing it.
So now we are battling past policies and harmful ordinances which do nothing to help us (with the exception of the mothballing ordinance).
PSOS needs help. And we need help in knowing what the right questions are. We, intuitively, know that this isn't kosher, something is desperately wrong. What we need help in determining is...what's the question? And where can help come from? Obviously it isn't COJ. The historic planning department is awesome, the historic planning commission is working for condemned structures, but they are small potatoes in the city.
Can we get help from the federal government? Since we are spending their money to demolish historic buildings (can't believe it isn't in the general fund), can they help us stop this?
IF they are using federal funds for the demolition, then there should have been some sort of review by the state historic review office. if they are using general revenue funds for the demo, then ?
I'm still letting sheclown's post perculate. definitely a procedure was not followed, even if it's just the city's own procedure.
a side note, HUD NSP funds are supposed to be specifically targeting areas with high #s of foreclosures and other at risk properties. seems like NSP3 was supposed to be focused in springfield? how is the city spending this?
My initial thoughts about the questions we should be asking:
1. How are these demolitions being funded in Springfield? If any federal funds are being used, then there should be follow up questions as well regarding how/if Section 106 reviews are being performed.
2. Should we expect a rash of demolitions on old cases such as this one? Is this the new directive...to just demolish anything with an open code case # that has not seen any progress?
3. What exactly are procedures regarding vacant properties and demolitions? This is HUGE to me, b/c it does not seem consistent or very conducive to getting property owners to make repairs/stablize home. It's unpredictable and vague and subjective and hard to understand, so how can the average property owner that is trying to get the property in compliance accomplish this let along SPAR or Preservation SOS or a potential developer for that matter.
4. If the City is claiming to promote community redevelopment, how does this aid in that? Many of these properties will have years' worth of fines from the City accumulating + the lien on the property for the demoltion + possibly back taxes owed + in some cases, there is a mortgage against the property as well! That is a lot of $ levied against the property before a single person can put money into repairs. It further deters investment in these properties.
5. And to follow that thought, if the City is being a good steward of funding, whether federal or general funds, is it prudent to spend money demolishing a house that has some sort of mortgage against it already? Once they demolish one of these properties, it seems like it's a sure thing that the properties will go into foreclosure. Generally mortgages have clauses that require the owner to keep the property in good condition, not permit alteration (including demo) of improvements w/o permission, prohibit further liens to be placed against the property, etc. Any of these could constitute a mortgage default and let mortgagor start LIS pendens proceedings. If the property is foreclosed, what are the chances the City will ever recover the payback of its liens/fines? Zero, I'd say.
The condemned properties in Springfield are indeed poisoned with fines. The house which was donated to PSOS on Walnut Court had a rolling fine of $250 per day. These rolling fines had accumulated for years until it had reached well over 400,000 and had spilled over onto everything that the property owner owns. Even with transferring the property to us, he still has that hanging over his head.
The Bostwick building is being fined $100 a day (I believe).
Mothballing does stop the fines from accumulating, but does nothing to remove them.
Bringing a house to certificate of occupancy does help and one can negotiate with the city to remove the fines. But this is highly subjective and arbitrary. It also prevents banks from lending money on a house with rolling fines.
a thread about the house on Walnut Court
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9603.0.html
Wow...it is hard to believe that Walnut Court happened almost 3 years ago!
I believe that the city feels about Springfield much as it does about downtown. It is fond of it, a bit embarrassed by it, wishes it could do something easy, gets frustrated when it takes too much work, then builds a resentment against it, blaming it for its own problems.
If preservation were truly valued in Jacksonville, Springfield and downtown would be vibrant. Instead, easy answers like the kind that fast-talking developers give seduce the city and leave us vacant and poor.
What we are required to do for all projects involving federal funds and housing.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/GDsscan10001.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/GDsscan10001.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/GDsscan10002.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/GDsscan10002.jpg.html)
This form is an example of what should have been done with the two properties on east 2nd street.
QuoteNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
An Act to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional Historic Properties throughout the Nation, and for
Enacted by U.S. Congress
Date passed October 15, 1966
Status: In force
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices.
Senate Bill 3035, the National Historic Preservation Act, was signed into law on October 15, 1966, and is the most far-reaching preservation legislation ever enacted in the United States. Several amendments have been made since. Among other things, the act requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.) through a process known as Section 106 Review.
QuoteSection 106 Review Process
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates federal agencies undergo a review process for all federally funded and permitted projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically it requires the federal agency to "take into account" the effect a project may have on historic properties. It allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on the potential impact projects may have on significant archaeological or historic sites. The main purpose for the establishment of the Section 106 review process is to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties.[26]
Any federal agency whose project, funding or permit may affect a historic property, both those listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, must consider the effects on historic properties and "seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate" any adverse effects on historic properties. The typical Section 106 Review involves four primary steps: 1 - Initiation of the Section 106 Review; 2 - Identification of Historic Properties; 3 - Assessment of Adverse Effects; and 4 - Resolution of Adverse Effects. Further steps may be required if there is a disagreement among the consulting parties on adverse effects or the resolution of the effects.[27]
The federal agency overseeing the project inventories the project area (or contracts with a qualified consultant) to determine the presence or absence of historic properties. They then submit to the SHPO a Determination of Effect/Finding of Effect (DOE/FOE) outlining to the SHPO the project, the efforts taken identify historic properties, and what effects, if any, the project may have on historic properties. If the project is believed to have no adverse effect on eligible historic resources and the SHPO and other consulting parties agree, then the Section 106 process is effectively closed and the project may proceed. Alternatively, if an adverse effect is expected, the agency is required to work with the local State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that all interested parties are given an opportunity to review the proposed work and provide comments. This step seeks ways for the project to avoid having an adverse effect on historic properties. Ideally, a Memorandum of Agreement is reached between all consulting parties outlining agreed to mitigation or avoidance of historic properties, but this is not always the case. Without this process historical properties would lose a significant protection. This process helps decide different approaches and solutions to the project, but does not prevent any site from demolition or alteration.[16]
Later amendments
The NHPA of 1966 made a huge impact in the communities and cities of America.[citation needed] Later amendments only strengthened the previously developed act. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) opened more opportunities for the NHPA to take effect. The NEPA protects a larger amount of area of property compared to the NHPA, because it includes the environment around it, which will sometimes inherently include historic sites. In 1976, Congress extended the Section 106 review process to include buildings, archaeological sites, and other historic resources eligible for listing, not just those already on the the National Register of Historic Places. In 1980, Section 110 was added. It added further requirements for federal agencies such as the need to establish their own internally staffed historic preservation programs. In 1992, amendments increased protection for Native American and Native Hawaiian preservation efforts.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Preservation_Act_of_1966
PSOS just received a public records report with the following properties demolished using NSP1 funds:
32206 Fairfield 1424 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Springfield 245 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1952 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 1503 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 533 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1720 Danese Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1509 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1414 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 702 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 630 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 3126 Plateau Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1971 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Phoenix 2217 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 165 West 40th Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 2830 Blair Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1721 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 111 East 6th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 915 Palmetto Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1221 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 Fairfield 1424 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Springfield 245 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1952 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 1503 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 533 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1720 Danese Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1509 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1414 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 702 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 630 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 3126 Plateau Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1971 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Phoenix 2217 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 165 West 40th Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 2830 Blair Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1721 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 111 East 6th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 915 Palmetto Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1221 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 721 East 4th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 319 Woodbine Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1477 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1458 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 432 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 Brentwood 40 West 27th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 636 Pippin Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 1424 East 26th Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1230 East 13th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 415 West 23rd Street
To our knowledge none of these demolitions prepared the necessary Section 106 review as required by federally funded programs.
Holy Cow. Did they send work orders to match up with the list?
Quote from: strider on September 30, 2013, 05:16:03 PM
PSOS just received a public records report with the following properties demolished using NSP1 funds:
OMG... I am at a complete loss for words here. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although not all of these properties were located within a Nationally Recognized Historic District, they were all probably more than 50 years old. And the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has not received any Section 106 reviews on them.
Here's an excerpt from NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM SECTION 106 TOOLKIT (emphasis is mine; entire document can be found here: portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12984.pdf)
QuoteThe materials included in this toolkit are designed to help Responsible Entities (HA!) comply with the historic preservation requirements of 36 CFR Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties," that are linked to the use of the funds provided for in § 2301 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), a.k.a Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
All Federally funded programs, including the "Neighborhood Stabilization Program," are required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f) to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such actions.
#1. Threshold for Historic Properties:
Triggering Section 106 Review
When your project will alter environmental conditions or has the likelihood to effect historic properties, you will need to complete a Section 106 review prior to committing funds. The procedures and obligations for handling this review requirement can be found in the following sources:
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f)
• 36 CFR Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties"
• 24 CFR Part 58, "Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities"
How do you determine which properties to consider? Here is the threshold for Historic Properties:
1. General Benchmark:
• Properties that are 50 years old or older. There could be exceptions.
2. "Historic properties" are defined as:
• Properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including individual properties, those properties defined as "contributing resources" in a historic district, archaeological sites, and properties of significance to federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.
And to add insult to injury.... The City of Jacksonville's NSP3 Performance Report for 2nd Quarter 2013 states the following in the Activity Progress Narrative:
QuoteDue to the historic aspects of the program area, he City's Demolition and Clearance activity is reviewing opportunities to stabilize properties within the target area versus demolition.
I should have kept reading that 2nd Qtr Performance Report before hitting POST. How about this? ??? This City of Jacksonville REPORTED TO HUD that they used NSP3 funds to demolish/clear THREE properties within the nationally recognized historic district of Springfield. REALLY Jacksonville? What the hell are you thinking?!?!?!!!
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/2013-06NSP3DemoProgressReport.jpg)
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 30, 2013, 06:21:08 PM
I should have kept reading that 2nd Qtr Performance Report before hitting POST. How about this? ??? This City of Jacksonville REPORTED TO HUD that they used NSP3 funds to demolish/clear THREE properties within the nationally recognized historic district of Springfield. REALLY Jacksonville? What the hell are you thinking?!?!?!!!
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/2013-06NSP3DemoProgressReport.jpg)
The fact that they did report could be a good thing.
1204 Walnut Street is the front porch they removed. We have the posts at Dancy for safe keeping. The house stands still. But the 2 E. 2nd properties as everyone knows are gone:demolished.
the hurston flower shop is included in the properties that were demolished with the nsp1 funds.
I'm reposting this list, b/c I think the earlier list by strider had a few duplications/omissions. There should be a total of 59 properties that were demolished in zip code 32206 using NSP1 funds per the public records released by the City.
32206 Fairfield 1424 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Springfield 245 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1952 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 1503 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 533 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1720 Danese Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1509 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1414 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 702 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 630 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 3126 Plateau Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1971 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Phoenix 2217 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 165 West 40th Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 2830 Blair Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1721 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 111 East 6th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 915 Palmetto Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1221 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 721 East 4th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 319 Woodbine Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1477 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 665 Ivy Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1377 Milnor Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 892 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 25 East 18th Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 2903 North Pearl Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 2050 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 416 Alder Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1630 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1329 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 445 East 7th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1351 Harrison Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 25 East 18th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1461 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1410 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1410 Florida Avenue Demolition [sic? address given twice in list]
32206 Brentwood 103 Fern Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1458 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 432 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 Brentwood 40 West 27th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 636 Pippin Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 1424 East 26th Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1230 East 13th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 415 West 23rd Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1057 East Union Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 449 West 22nd Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 342 West 10th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3902 Laurie Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1457 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3838 Perry Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1341 Pearl Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 630 East 28th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 616 East 3rd Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1130 East 12th Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1320 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3320 North Pearl Street Demolition
For a detailed list of the required demolition process for NSP, go here:
https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/DemolitionProcessDetailed.pdf
Quote from: m74reeves on September 30, 2013, 11:02:18 PM
I'm reposting this list, b/c I think the earlier list by strider had a few duplications/omissions. There should be a total of 59 properties that were demolished in zip code 32206 using NSP1 funds per the public records released by the City.
32206 Fairfield 1424 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Springfield 245 17th Street East Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1952 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 1503 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 533 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1720 Danese Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1509 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1414 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 702 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 630 Phelps Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 3126 Plateau Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1971 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Phoenix 2217 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 165 West 40th Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 2830 Blair Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1721 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 111 East 6th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 915 Palmetto Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1221 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 721 East 4th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 319 Woodbine Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1477 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 665 Ivy Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1377 Milnor Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 892 Van Buren Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 25 East 18th Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 2903 North Pearl Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 2050 Phoenix Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 416 Alder Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1630 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1329 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Springfield 445 East 7th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1351 Harrison Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 25 East 18th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1461 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1410 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1410 Florida Avenue Demolition [sic? address given twice in list]
32206 Brentwood 103 Fern Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1458 Florida Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 432 Golfair Boulevard Demolition
32206 Brentwood 40 West 27th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 636 Pippin Street Demolition
32206 Long Branch 1424 East 26th Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1230 East 13th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 415 West 23rd Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1057 East Union Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 449 West 22nd Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 342 West 10th Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3902 Laurie Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1457 Evergreen Avenue Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3838 Perry Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1341 Pearl Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 630 East 28th Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 1206 Franklin Street Demolition
32206 East Jacksonville 616 East 3rd Street Demolition
32206 Phoenix 1130 East 12th Street Demolition
32206 Springfield 1320 Ionia Street Demolition
32206 Brentwood 3320 North Pearl Street Demolition
Those in red are in the historic district
Our much fought for Patterson Apartments is on this list. The neighborhood collected red hearts and peppered the lawn with them, begged the city not to demolish, and it did -- anyway.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/PattersonApt.jpg)
Patterson Apartment thread:
http://myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1289
I don't understand the criteria that well, after all, I only know what I have been researching, but I believe that houses 50 years or older need section 106 reviews?
Not just if they are located in a historic district?
One quick look at the list would tell us that many of these properties are old. Certainly those listed in New Springfield.
And this is just for 32206. What is Durkeeville's zip code? How many old homes were demolished there using NSP1 funds?
Remember that the city got $ 1 million dollars for demolition under that program.
It doesn't seem like it is just for demolitions either, anything you do to a house 50 years old or older and/ or having a historic designation or eligible for that designation must have a 106 review. Isn't that why we hear some cities do 106 reviews all the time as a matter of course rather than take the chance they get it wrong?
In one case where the feds didn't like how funds were spent, they asked for it back. Wonder if MCC can pay back that cool mil?
Part of the 106 Review Plan is public comments.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/patterson_apts--hearts.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/patterson_apts--hearts.jpg.html)
The neighborhood banded together and placed hearts in front of this apartment building to show how important it was to everyone.
This article was in the paper:
Quote
Neighborhood Places Their Hearts on Patterson Apartments
Submitted by Nicole Lopez
Friday, April 29th, 2011, 10:30pm
342 W. 10th Street, a.k.a. Patterson Apartments is slated for demolition. It's only a matter of time: the sewer and electric lines have been cut and it waits in the hands of the demolition contractor. A year ago, the JHPC (Historic Preservation Commission) approved this property for the (non-existent) formal track for demolition. Meaning, the owner had his last chance to "restore or demolish" (demolish on his own) the property or MCCD (Code Enforcement) will abate the "problem" by demolishing it.
A small, growing, and forceful group has emerged in the neighborhood in this last year. With a heart as their symbol, Preservation SOS sent multiple messages out to the neighborhood asking for their hearts (residents were given decorative wood hearts made by SOS to symbolize preservation support in Historic Springfield) to be delivered and adorn Patterson Apartments to send out a loud message of preservation.
Since becoming a historic district in 1987, Historic Springfield has lost over 450 homes to demolition. If you wish to voice your concern over the unnecessary demolition of this home, please contact the mayor's office, with it's death eminent, going all the way to the top is the only way.
http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/neighborhood-places-their-hearts-patterson-apartments/53156
working through the list for the dates built:
1424 17th Street East Demolition – 1962
245 17th Street East Demolition – 1914
1952 Evergreen Avenue Demolition – 1919
1503 Ionia Street Demolition – 1908
533 Golfair Boulevard Demolition – 1922
1720 Danese Street Demolition – 1926
1509 Evergreen Avenue Demolition --1909
1414 Florida Avenue Demolition -- no record card
702 Phelps Street Demolition – 1909
1206 Franklin Street Demolition – 1899
630 Phelps Street Demolition – 1904
3126 Plateau Street Demolition-- 1931
1971 Phoenix Avenue Demolition – no record card
2217 Evergreen Avenue Demolition – no record card
165 West 40th Street Demolition – 1951
2830 Blair Street Demolition – 1931
1721 Ionia Street Demolition – 1909
111 East 6th Street Demolition – 1910
915 Palmetto Street Demolition – 1934
1221 Van Buren Street Demolition – no record card
721 East 4th Street Demolition – 1904
319 Woodbine Street Demolition – 1947
1477 Evergreen Avenue Demolition – 1930
665 Ivy Street Demolition – 1928
1377 Milnor Street Demolition – 1904
892 Van Buren Street Demolition – 1933
25 East 18th Street Demolition – 1919
Shall I go on?
All of the houses I have looked up have been 50 years or older. All required a section 106 review. None were done.
$1 million dollars spent of NSP 1 funds to demolish --
Attached are screen shots of an excel spreadsheet I put together of all the demolitions completed using NSP1 funds. Some fo the demolition lien dates are recent (2013). Of the 59 properties listed, I've been able to find 51 properties over 50 years old with a total of 57 demolitions. There are 8 listed for which I am unable to find the address or the demo information.
If someone can tell me how to attach the actual document, I'm willing to do that as well.
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/NSP1Demolitions_1.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/NSP1Demolitions_2.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/NSP1Demolitions_3.jpg)
wow Kim. Fantastic.
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 08:45:49 AM
And sheclown, let me see if I understand this.
The million dollars that you referenced was given to the city with the proviso that it would be used to stabilize the structures first, and that these 106 reviews were supposed to be done prior to any demolitions.
And the point of the 106 review is to determine if the money could be used to stabilize, repair and preserve rather than destroy?
And Kim Scott took the very money meant to stabilize the houses, kept it from contractors willing to do the work at near cost and used it to demolish the structures at full market value, with all salvage rights going to the demolition company?
yes.
And its even worse. Some of these were done AGAINST the homeowner's wishes.
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 01:29:36 PM
and apparently the salvage rights were stolen from the landowners.
the following comment from our facebook page:
Quote
I hope this means she can now be stopped! In addition to the loss of these historic structures, it seems that the policy to give salvage rights to the demolition companies is also illegal? As I understand it, these properties were never seized by the City, yet they gave away all of the private property (not just salvaged materials but also tools and anything else found on site) belonging to the owners to a third party with as little as 72 hours notice to appeal?
Well speaking of, they don't follow their own notices either, I have a client right now who was given 72 hours within which to appeal, which she was doing, then they tore it the next morning after delivering the notice.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 21, 2013, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 01:29:36 PM
and apparently the salvage rights were stolen from the landowners.
the following comment from our facebook page:
Quote
I hope this means she can now be stopped! In addition to the loss of these historic structures, it seems that the policy to give salvage rights to the demolition companies is also illegal? As I understand it, these properties were never seized by the City, yet they gave away all of the private property (not just salvaged materials but also tools and anything else found on site) belonging to the owners to a third party with as little as 72 hours notice to appeal?
Well speaking of, they don't follow their own notices either, I have a client right now who was given 72 hours within which to appeal, which she was doing, then they tore it the next morning after delivering the notice.
You have got to be kidding me. This is out of control. So glad things are now being exposed.
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 02:12:03 PM
Isnt alot of this happening in Gaffney's district?
Yes, a lot of this IS happening in Gaffney's district. 09/30/13 I had a meeting scheduled to speak to Gaffney about NSP funds being used for demolitions in Springfield. Sheclown went with me. At that meeting we presented all sorts of documentation that spelled out what is required to use federal funds to demolish a historic structure and how the City was not following that procedure. Gaffney seemed appalled and we set up a meeting with the City Attorney, Terrance Ashante-Barker, Kim Scott, Calvin Burney, HPC staff, CM Daniels and a few others. We then went to see CM Brown about mothballing. Because the attendees requested to discuss both issues were the same, the Councilmen decided to combine the meeting - that meeting was to be held tomorrow at 2:00.
For some unknown reason, this meeting has been cancelled. And with no communication whatsoever to me or Sheclown, the two citizens who requested the meeting in the first place. I left a message for CM Gaffney's assistant Tiffany early this morning and have yet to receive a return call.
Don't know what the heck is going on but I'll tell you what...you will either speak to us privately with a limited audience, or we will speak to EVERYONE!
Gaffney is well aware of what has been going down via Kim Scott's office. Now it will be a matter of wanting to distance himself from what is exposed at the same time he risks his own exposure via an angry Scott. This is going to be very interesting to watch. The cancellation is no surprise. This can of worms actually exposes a mindset and history of behavior that touches more people that Kim Scott.
You know what? If folks did what is right all the time, there would be no need to worry about 'exposure' from anything or anyone. This whole thing pisses me off more than you know and although I've been extremely angry about this for a while, it's getting worse now.
After speaking at City Council meetings on both June 11 and June 25 about demolition, several council members said they wanted to be involved in finding out what was going on. Emails were sent to them and no response was received. After my statements at each meeting, I was asked to meet council members in the green room where they expressed "extreme concern" about what I was relaying to them. What has been done? NADA! It is all a smoke screen to perhaps make them look like they care. I'm telling you this - I am tired of hearing that you are upset and appalled....If you are, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! This City has had ample time to investigate this on their own and they've all ignored it.
There are clear and definite procedures in place by which citizens can address violations of in this case Federal law and regulations. If the violations are so clearly delineated, it sounds that whoever is privy to that information should simply file a complaint.
Below is the link for the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
https://www.hudoig.gov/report-fraud
I would follow up your complaint with a carefully written missive to your U.S. Senators. I will think that you would be quite surprised at the speed to which you will hear responses.
Those procedures are not as clear and concise as you may think. They are, however, being pursued.
You also need to look here:
Community Planning and Development
Please direct these to the Office of Community Planning and Development, http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/complaints.cfm
Quote from the page you referenced:
"Complaints about fraud, waste, and abuse about grant programs that represent criminal wrongdoing or HUD standards of ethics and conduct may be submitted to the Office of Inspector General (OIG)."
I've never been a fan of reporting a complaint to a local office of an agency that maintains an active professional relationship with the local government as to whom the complaint pertains. There does need to be some degree of independence to get any traction regardless of the veracity of the complaint.
But glad someone is doing something about it, if they feel that strongly about it.
You start local and keep working up the food chain. It is a slow process sometimes, but it works. At some point, the right person sees it and the issues get addressed.
There is much more to this and much more is about to be brought out into the sunshine.
We just want Jacksonville to do the right thing --
Being fairly new to this ordeal, is this overwhelmingly a 32206 thing, or is that the only area being focused on because this topic is in the Springfield thread? How much of this is happening outside of 32206?
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on October 21, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Being fairly new to this ordeal, is this overwhelmingly a 32206 thing, or is that the only area being focused on because this topic is in the Springfield thread? How much of this is happening outside of 32206?
Plenty Scrub. It's happening in the community around Edward Waters College and has been for a number of years.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on October 21, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Being fairly new to this ordeal, is this overwhelmingly a 32206 thing, or is that the only area being focused on because this topic is in the Springfield thread? How much of this is happening outside of 32206?
We just got our public records request in for 32206. It appears that this area used a little less than half of the 1 million demolition dollars. There are other zip codes affected, we just don't have that information yet.
1.) These are our federal dollars being spent. We are, by law, required to have a say in how the money is being spent.
2.) We are, by law, required to be informed as to the changes made in the community using federal funds -- the process is required to be transparent.
3.) We are, by law, offered protection against adverse effects on our historic properties or those properties 50 years or older.
4.) We have turned over police power (the power to seize private property) to a department which cannot even follow the simplest of federal guidelines and has, in fact, put federal grants in jeopardy. Yet this same department, without due process, can condemn a property, kick the owner out of the property, and demolish without a court proceeding -- there is only the special master which is a city employee and not an independent judge:
Quote
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
5.) We lost an exceptional opportunity to make a huge difference in Springfield - to fund restoration projects, to mothball blighted structures, to even save Drew Castle perhaps. And for what? To what end?
Quote
Well speaking of, they don't follow their own notices either, I have a client right now who was given 72 hours within which to appeal, which she was doing, then they tore it the next morning after delivering the notice.
Perhaps this is a viable strategy for those who own properties but can't afford the upkeep -- wait until the city tears down the structure, and then sue!
When the client gets the settlement, will they rebuild in Springfield?
Demolitions can be mighty expensive -- lost federal funds -- law suits.
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 08:45:49 AM
And sheclown, let me see if I understand this.
And the point of the 106 review is to determine if the money could be used to stabilize, repair and preserve rather than destroy?
I just wanted to clarify...a Section 106 review thru the State HPO does not determine the structural soundness or best use of funds. Any proposed project receiving federal funds that may "adversely affect" historic properties are supposed to submit a package to the SHPO. This would include anything addressing properties older than 50 years old...so both HUD funded repairs as well as demolitions would require the Section 106 review. They will review the historical and archaelogical significance of the property to determine whether the proposed project raises any concerns/issues or can proceed as proposed. This is to be done PRIOR to expenditure of funds.
Of course, this review is only as good as what is submitted and when the city neglects to submit ANYTHING, well, you see what occurs.
JaxUnicorn, please tell me that the demo cost of over $78K for 1341 N. Pearl Street is a typo? What was there???
Jewish Community Center.
Quote from: m74reeves on October 21, 2013, 10:27:16 PM
JaxUnicorn, please tell me that the demo cost of over $78K for 1341 N. Pearl Street is a typo? What was there???
Nope, not a typo. And I question the location....as iloveionia said, I too think this was the Jewish Community Center. However, that was located on West 3rd, not Pearl. So....I'm a bit confused as to what was demolished.
Check out this news story from First Coast News. The video is not up yet...
http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes (http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes)
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 22, 2013, 12:15:04 AM
Check out this news story from First Coast News. The video is not up yet...
http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes (http://springfield.firstcoastnews.com/news/real-estate/136813-city-admits-error-demolishing-historic-homes)
Here's the video!
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/332683/483/City-Admits-Error-in-Demolishing-Historic-Homes-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/332683/483/City-Admits-Error-in-Demolishing-Historic-Homes-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge)
I received this on Thursday, October 17 via email.
Quote
Gloria DeVall
Preservation SOS
Hi Ms. DeVall,
The City of Jacksonville (the "City") through its Housing and Community Development Division ("HCDD") has received your email dated September 4, 2013 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). In this email, you raise concerns regarding the City's use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP") funds in the demolition of properties at 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street in the Historic Springfield District. The City has conducted a thorough review of the concerns raised in your email and provides the following information to address those concerns.
Background on the 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street
Municipal Code Compliance Division's ("MCCD") records regarding the two above referenced properties demonstrated that both 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street had a long history of continued code compliance violations and continued deterioration of each properties' structural integrity.
More specifically, records further showed that the owners of 129 E. 2nd Street and 253 E. 2nd Street failed to address code violations during the course of enforcement (as long as 21years for the 253 E. 2nd Street property) and/or to perform any repair work. Subsequent separate independent structural engineer reviews and visual inspections by MCCD's code compliance officers later confirmed that continued deterioration of each property's structural conditions created imminently unsafe conditions which warranted emergency demolition actions.
Use of NSP Funds
The NSP program was established by HUD for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. Demolitions are one of the eligible activities that NSP funds may be used to advance this purpose. NSP funds are paid on a reimbursement basis.
With regard to using federal funds (such as NSP) to reimburse the demolitions of properties within the Historic Springfield District, the National Historic Preservation Act requires that a Section 106 review (with the exception of certain disaster conditions) be conducted prior to the reimbursement of such federal funds.
Our investigation into the two referenced demolitions identified that the Section 106 reviews were not completed. Since these Section 106 reviews were not completed and there were no available exceptions, these demolitions were not eligible for reimbursement under the City's NSP program. MCCD has provided the necessary account numbers from its non-federal funding sources to reimburse NSP and the entries necessary to return the program funds to the City's NSP program funds are being completed. HUD has been informed that we have concluded that these demolitions are not eligible for NSP reimbursement and that all accounting actions are being finalized to ensure that only MCCD's non-federal funding sources apply to these demolitions.
Proactive Improvements
Although your use of NSP funds concern has been completely addressed and is being finalized, I wanted to inform you that we are making the necessary process and procedural improvements within the City to improve and increase communication and training, ensure the proper use of federal funds and compliance with federal historic preservation requirements.
The City is in the process of preparing its NSP Quarterly Performance Reports ("QPR") for both NSP1 and NSP3 for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2013. Staff will pay particular attention to the quality of the information being included in those reports in attempt to address any concerns that you have raised regarding the level of detail available to the community. These reports will be available on the City's website on or around November 1, 2013.
Thank you very much for your email. We welcome feedback from the citizens that we serve and look forward to the positive changes that can be made to increase communication and transparency between the various divisions of the City and the community as a whole.
TAB
Terrance L. Ashanta-Barker, JD
Director of Neighborhoods
City of Jacksonville (Ed Ball Building)
214 North Hogan Street, 5th Floor
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Office: (904) 255-7238 | Fax: (904) 588-0519
Email: tashanta-barker@coj.net
Connect with Mayor Brown and the City of Jacksonville!
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Blog Google
For general information, contact 630-CITY (2489).
View our calendar, sign up for newsletters or learn about volunteer opportunities.
*** Please note that under Florida's very broad public records law, email communications to and from city officials are subject to public disclosure. ***
Based on this occurance in Greenville SC, if stimulus funds were used and rules were broken, there is a distinct of fines from the feds as well as reimbursement required.
QuoteAn internal audit found that contractors and subcontractors made more than 5,500 reporting errors while working on school projects in Greenville County funded by $29.2 million in federal stimulus money, according to a school district document.
District Finance Director Jeff Knotts told GreenvilleOnline.com most of the errors were related to incomplete worker time sheets turned in by contractors and subcontractors in nine school construction and renovation projects.
During the audit process, all but 806 of the errors were resolved, he said.
Knotts described the errors as "procedural," but the audit says, "Any deficiencies or errors could result in the District being fined an/or required to reimburse the government for these stimulus funds."
The errors are violations of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law designed to ensure that workers on federally funded jobs are paid at least the local prevailing wage, according to the audit document.
Knotts said the records show that the workers were paid the prevailing wage.
The reason the timecards were incomplete, Knotts said, was that workers often spent part of their work week on other projects not related to the federally funded school projects, so those days were left blank.
Quote from: m74reeves on October 21, 2013, 10:11:47 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 08:45:49 AM
And sheclown, let me see if I understand this.
And the point of the 106 review is to determine if the money could be used to stabilize, repair and preserve rather than destroy?
I just wanted to clarify...a Section 106 review thru the State HPO does not determine the structural soundness or best use of funds. Any proposed project receiving federal funds that may "adversely affect" historic properties are supposed to submit a package to the SHPO. This would include anything addressing properties older than 50 years old...so both HUD funded repairs as well as demolitions would require the Section 106 review. They will review the historical and archaelogical significance of the property to determine whether the proposed project raises any concerns/issues or can proceed as proposed. This is to be done PRIOR to expenditure of funds.
Of course, this review is only as good as what is submitted and when the city neglects to submit ANYTHING, well, you see what occurs.
The reason for the transparency requirement!
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 21, 2013, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2013, 02:12:03 PM
Isnt alot of this happening in Gaffney's district?
Yes, a lot of this IS happening in Gaffney's district. 09/30/13 I had a meeting scheduled to speak to Gaffney about NSP funds being used for demolitions in Springfield. Sheclown went with me. At that meeting we presented all sorts of documentation that spelled out what is required to use federal funds to demolish a historic structure and how the City was not following that procedure. Gaffney seemed appalled and we set up a meeting with the City Attorney, Terrance Ashante-Barker, Kim Scott, Calvin Burney, HPC staff, CM Daniels and a few others. We then went to see CM Brown about mothballing. Because the attendees requested to discuss both issues were the same, the Councilmen decided to combine the meeting - that meeting was to be held tomorrow at 2:00.
For some unknown reason, this meeting has been cancelled. And with no communication whatsoever to me or Sheclown, the two citizens who requested the meeting in the first place. I left a message for CM Gaffney's assistant Tiffany early this morning and have yet to receive a return call.
Don't know what the heck is going on but I'll tell you what...you will either speak to us privately with a limited audience, or we will speak to EVERYONE!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/2450ce29-2a25-4c0f-809d-e97701738838.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/2450ce29-2a25-4c0f-809d-e97701738838.jpg.html)
An audit needs to be immediately undertaken to look into MCCDs funding sources (what is federally funded and what is not -- especially considering Terrance Ashanta-Bakers reference in the email -- they will use money from the general fund -- I am not a public administrator, but it seems to me all money has some federal funds tied into it). The city also needs to look at the expenditures, the procurement process -- what the money is being spent on and how.
Wonder why Springfield gets all of this attention, while areas like Riverside allow vacant structures to rest in peace? We always have.
Perhaps it goes something like this.
Jacksonville is an "entitlement community" eligible for money because its community is poor and in need of help. Springfield and the remainder of 32206 add beautifully to these statistics as the average income is well below the city's average and the composite of racially diverse citizens. The city has to indicate how many minorities were helped. How many poor people were helped.
So it sends code enforcement officers out to hunt for ways it can spend federal dollars in this needy zip code.
That federal money which was intended to help stabilize poor neighborhoods instead was used to wipe out our history -- can you imagine what we could have done with this money?
Springfield and the remainder of 32206 is common fodder for the city to feed on from the feds and it gets very little in return for being so molested.
------------------
And one other very important point (one which will really bite them in the ass) -- many of these houses are taken against the wishes of the homeowner.
126 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street both were and there are plenty more.
Show me anywhere how this is an acceptable use of NSP funds.
Our response to Mr. Barker emailed yesterday morning:
QuoteMr. Ashanta-Barker,
Thank you for your response to Preservation SOS's concerns. We have been working on this issue for many months, years actually, and are thankful it is starting to get the attention it deserves. We also believe that the information provided to others about this issue should be completely factual so to that end, we would like to respond to some of your comments.
The current ordinances allow for the emergency demolitions when a structure constitutes an " extreme and imminent public safety hazard". You stated that a "separate independent structural engineer" supported MCCD's decision that both structures "created imminently unsafe conditions". I refer you to the definitions Atlantic Engineering provides in all their reports to MCCD. It states that to list a structure as "poor" means "majority of structure does not meet structural code requirements" while "extremely poor" means "collapse of structure is imminent.".
When we look at 129 East 2nd Street's case, we see that 18 hours prior to MCCD demolishing the historic structure both Preservation SOS and the Historic Preservation Commission requested that MCCD brace the remains of the front porch gable. When we look at Atlantic Engineering's report done for MCCD, we see that they state that the main structure is "poor" while only the front gable roof is in "extremely poor" condition. This supports the requests from PSOS and the HPC not the demolition of the entire structure.
Looking at 253 East 2nd Street's case is a bit more complicated. Atlantic Engineering's report states that the structure is in poor condition with the upper front porch and the east wall in extremely poor condition. So to determine if this structure meets the "extreme and imminent public safety hazard", we need to look further. The conclusions from Atlantic Engineering also state that the structure "should be properly repaired, braced and shored immediately to prevent collapse or it should be demolished..." Now we need to look at the ordinances again to see how we are to handle demolitions within a historic district.
307.113, in part, says: "In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions."
As we can see, the law states that the least intrusive means should be used when dealing with a historic structure. I believe we all can agree that as Atlantic Engineering stated it could be braced, to have followed the law and the recommendations of the independent engineer would have been to brace the extremely poor parts of the building.
Now, add in the fact that the Neighborhoods Department was about to use NSP3 funds to restore this structure, a fact MCCD was made aware of, and reasonable people can see the proper course of action was not the demolition of this structure.
As a point of fact, the purpose of having an historic district is to preserve those structures for future generations. The current owners of these structures do indeed have a responsibility to maintain these structures in good repair. However, by reading the various city ordinances one can readily see that the city itself also takes on some amount of responsibility for insuring these structures remain here for those future generations. That is why the ordinance codes do not only say demolish but give the authority to the city to repair and maintain those historic properties. One can see that at least within the Historic Districts or with landmarks buildings, the repairs needed to preserve the structures are not really any different than what the city does to keep the yards mowed (the maintaining of property). If the owner does not do it, the city gets it done. The authority to make repairs and to brace and even mothball these structures is already in the ordinances, it is policy not to use that authority. I will be happy to forward those various ordinances to you if you can't find them yourself.
From the information we have received, the funds were originally taken from an NSP account. We are not sure why you state they "reimburse". We would like a more detailed explanation of how those funds are used, distributed and how that reimbursement system works. In addition, we will need the new account information to insure that the new account will not have any federal funds from other sources.
There are at least eight additional historic houses for which NSP1 funding was used for the demolition and for which we have been told no 106 reviews were done. These will also have to be added into the funds the city owes back to the NSP program. We will need the detailed accounting of those demolitions as well. In addition, there was at least one million dollars allotted to MCCD under NSP1. We will need the 106 reviews for all the structures that met the 50 years requirement as well as the ones within the historic districts. The same applies to the NSP3 $ 400,000.00 allotted to MCCD for clearance and demolitions. Please remember that to do anything to these houses requires a 106 review, even if it is just a repair or boarding.
We find it extremely troubling that you, your predecessor, Ms Scott as well as other responsible employees did not know that 106 reviews were required. After all, Ms Scott has been in her position for about seven years. I would think people in her position, as well as yours, would make sure they were very familiar with the federal programs that have brought in over one million dollars to your department over the past few years.
We have a huge concern over your statement "Although your use of NSP funds concern has been completely addressed and is being finalized" because it is a huge issue that we have yet only begun to understand ourselves and one that we apparently just made you aware of. When intelligent people do rather dumb things, like ignore the federal requirements for spending federal funds, we need to now take a very close look at everything those people have been doing. From how decisions are made, to how contracts are awarded and how the policies are set in interacting with the public and those people effected by the decisions made by MCCD. We need to review the qualifications of everyone involved and in the department. We need to see that MCCD is openly communicating with the other departments and that they are being responsive to the needs and requirements of the federally and city protected structures. Changes are needed, not only to safe guard against abuse, but also to improve the function of MCCD to one that begins to actually have a positive effect on the city as a whole.
We need to see the reports from the previous NSP1 and NSP3 quarters and see that they have been fully updated to reflect the issues we have uncovered. We need to begin the process of making changes to the ordinances to insure these types of abuses of power are not done in the future.
We look forward to the coming meeting and hope that we can work together to make positive changes.
Sincerely,
Joe Markusic
Gloria DeVall
Preservation SOS
One misstatement we made in the above is that it implies that the Neighborhoods Department only got a million four, in reality all of the NSP1 ($26,175,317.00 in total - 2009?) and 3 ($7,102,937.00 in total - 2011?), as well as a lot of CDBG funding goes through that department. The million four was Municipal Code Compliance Division's (Kimberly Scott's) share of those millions the city got from NSP1 & 3. It is not inconceivable that the city could be on the hook for literally Millions over this. However, I suspect that most of the other Division Chiefs are better at following the laws than Ms Scott has proven to be.
Strider, we shall see. I certainly hope so....Code Enforcement is OUT OF CONTROL and PSOS has been saying that for years....
Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 22, 2013, 10:39:32 AM
Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?
We weren't notified and our phone calls have gone unanswered
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 22, 2013, 10:39:32 AM
Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?
must have been pretty critical if it shut down phone service and cancelled his email access to tell the other participants in the meeting.
I don't know. I don't speak for the guy. I'm just of the opinion that a canceled meeting doesn't necessarily mean something sinister is taking place, as suggested by this post:
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 10:31:11 AM
Why on earth would Councilman Gaffney cancel a meeting on this issue?
Is he involved in this somehow?
Nice news piece last evening and Ann is the right reporter to have on this issue. She doesn't play when it comes to getting the facts in a story. Well done everyone. Keep on digging for documents, there is more to be found.
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 22, 2013, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 22, 2013, 10:39:32 AM
Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or someone of critical importance to this situation wasn't available to attend?
must have been pretty critical if it shut down phone service and cancelled his email access to tell the other participants in the meeting.
I don't know. I don't speak for the guy. I'm just of the opinion that a canceled meeting doesn't necessarily mean something sinister is taking place, as suggested by this post:
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 10:31:11 AM
Why on earth would Councilman Gaffney cancel a meeting on this issue?
Is he involved in this somehow?
Involvement doesnt mean 'sinister', lake. But I think the fact that you assume as much is pretty telling about the nature of this particular issue.
Is this the first time Gaffney has cancelled, she clown or jax unicorn?
No, prior to the one meeting (that he finally agreed to only after he realized the city was on the hook for 7 figures), we've never been able to get much of a response from him at all. In fact councilman Lumb pretty much took up where Gaffney wouldn't in trying to address some of the issues we'd raised, realizing there was a problem, and that's what resulted in that public meeting we had at city hall, I think you attended it too, that Gaffney didn't even attend despite it concerning his district. Unfortunately Lumb couldn't get much traction from the rest of the city council afterwards on any kind of a solution.
Of course, that was all back before Kim Scott started threatening to have councilmembers arrested, etc. Since the proverbial shark has now been jumped, I expect the landscape has changed materially. We shall see.
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2013, 11:27:20 AM
Involvement doesnt mean 'sinister', lake. But I think the fact that you assume as much is pretty telling about the nature of this particular issue.
My bad. To be honest, my statement was assumed based on your historical posting style moreso than anything else.
Stephen, what was the basis of their threat to arrest Kim Daniels?
Oh yes. It was if she showed up to stop that demo. I remember now.
This entire issue really dovetails into a bigger and long standing problem in Jacksonville that is definitely tied to politics and goes back for many years. Will comment more about this in a bit.
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 22, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds. We shall see.
And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do. Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd. He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 22, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 22, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds. We shall see.
And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do. Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd. He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.
They were also the contracting company that took down the 100 year old Duckeeville house on Myrtle -- waiting to hear the funding source on that one too. Interesting story on that one. Original bid $7200. Change order for $7400. which brought the total job cost to a whopping $14,600.
Good news story -- it's good to see some real journalism -- also a very well written reply to Mr. Barker. I'm mystified by the actions of my hometown in what is not just a neighborhood, but a regional treasure IMO. A real tragedy would be if there weren't people like you, sheclown, JaxUnicorn, and others, down there fighting this. You're keeping my faith in Jacksonville as a community, even though as a governing body, the faith's pretty shattered.
I wish I could join in. Next year...
PSOS will be on Action News tonight. 10:00 on Fox and 11 on CBS.
I was nervous and I sucked big time, but the important thing is the issue is out there and people are interested.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1142340b-121c-456d-81f5-1217cf0150f1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1142340b-121c-456d-81f5-1217cf0150f1.jpg.html)
I took a picture of him while he was taking a picture of me.
Then Kim and I went to city council.
Kim got in trouble for cussin' at the council. I was just angry and told them so.
It's been a crazy couple of days.
Isn't it interesting how you keep turning over rocks, and the Lloyd's keep scurrying out from under them? Not making any accusations. Just saying it's interesting how often they turn up. Maybe it's because they under bid, and then double their price later. Or maybe some other reason. But they sure do keep showing up on demo after demo. Interesting.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 22, 2013, 08:26:39 PM
Isn't it interesting how you keep turning over rocks, and the Lloyd's keep scurrying out from under them? Not making any accusations. Just saying it's interesting how often they turn up. Maybe it's because they under bid, and then double their price later. Or maybe some other reason. But they sure do keep showing up on demo after demo. Interesting.
Been wondering the same thing for awhile...
The news article/video was excellent. The truths were exposed. That federal money could have been used to stabilize and mothball. Imagine the dreams that could have come true for people looking for homes to rehab. Now the dream lies in vacant overgrown lots. Hundreds of them.
Seems like the mayor would have something to say about this...........or not............
So the neighborhoods chief admits the city made some mistakes... some money has been repaid? The "City" didn't make the mistakes. There was a live body or two making decisions and putting pen to paper authorizing said "mistakes".
Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2013, 08:20:54 PM
PSOS will be on Action News tonight. 10:00 on Fox and 11 on CBS.
I was nervous and I sucked big time, but the important thing is the issue is out there and people are interested.
I took a picture of him while he was taking a picture of me.
Then Kim and I went to city council.
Kim got in trouble for cussin' at the council. I was just angry and told them so.
It's been a crazy couple of days.
I watched both news stories (they were the same, just aired on different networks). I did not care for Mark Spain's comment at the end of the 10:00 story as it sounded as though he was downplaying the issue. Wish I had recorded it, but it was something along the lines of...The City has said they've repaid the tens of thousands of dollars. As if to say, tis OK...we gave the money back. Just seemed the comment could have been better, and Paige Kelton's closing comment at the 11:00 story was way better:
QuoteAnd the City says it has paid back thousands of dollars that were misused. We want to know exactly how much that was and we'll keep asking until we get that number for you.
And then there was City Council. Sheclown did a FANTASTIC job addressing Council. Although she was angry, she was articulate and passionate. I, on the other hand, wasn't so good. Yes, Yarborough interrupted my time when I used the word 'damn' to tell me that was the second time I cussed (the first time I said "we are pissed!") and that kind of language is not to be used as there may be children watching.
Crazy couple of days doesn't even come close to describing what's been going on here lately! PSOS WILL NOT STOP!! SAVE THE HOUSES!!!
"All the city can say is ooops."
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/4508537
Quote from: tpot on October 22, 2013, 09:43:10 PM
Seems like the mayor would have something to say about this...........or not............
He's in London. Nevertheless, what has been the response of the Mayor's administration?
Quote from: Ralph W on October 22, 2013, 11:20:50 PM
So the neighborhoods chief admits the city made some mistakes... some money has been repaid? The "City" didn't make the mistakes. There was a live body or two making decisions and putting pen to paper authorizing said "mistakes".
To be accurate, the Division Head admitted to us that the Department Head of Municipal Code Compliance tried to use NSP3 funds to do two emergency demolitions and did so without the proper 106 review so they must reimburse the federal program those funds. That total is $27,490.00 for those two demolitions. We have so far identified a potential $477,000 .00 in NSP1 funds used doing demolitions without the proper 106 reviews. Plus the issue is not limited to just demolitions, but other activities as well. Yes, the City handled the funds improperly. Barker and Scott are both serving at the pleasure of the Mayor. In addition, the Office of General Counsel assigns someone to those departments, in this case, or at least until recently, that was Jason Teal. Lots of people are responsible for how that 33 million plus of NSP funding is spent. In the end, the ultimate responsibility must fall on the "boss". In this case, the Mayor. It will be up to him to fix the personnel problems.
Calling this a mistake is incorrect. This city and that Department Head have been dealing with those federal funds for many years. Did everyone suddenly have amnesia or is something much more sinister at work here? Thirty Three Million in NSP funding. In the end, how many millions will be due back to the NSP programs and how many more millions will have to be paid back from the CDBG funds used for the same things? Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity and many times is gross misconduct.
+1
It's not a mistake, it's arrogance. They do whatever they please and are used to not having to answer for it.
Except this time they will.
The question is how well does HUD like the City and its depts.
Aren't they the ones who determine whether this was accidental oversight or pure negligence.
If enforcement is in their hands they can be as punitive or forgiving as they so choose.
Fortunately the local office can only do so much, they have plenty of oversight and ultimately HUD answers to the auditor general like everyone else, if we have to take it that far anyway. An issue with misspending government funds can't be controlled at one office or even one agency, for obvious reasons.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx)
QuoteACKSONVILLE Fla.-- As the City tore down walls of historic Springfield homes, neighbors tore through the City Code Compliance Division's every move. They believe they found one major mistake. The demolitions were being funded with federal dollars.
"It's very frustrating because this money could have been used to mothball the houses to remove the Blight to make renovations there are many things that could have been done," said Gloria Devall, a neighbor and Springfield preservationist.
Action News obtained a letter from the City's Code Compliance Office to Devall. In the letter the City admits two homes
were demolished with "non-eligible" funds.
"They're going to be punished," said Devall. She says there are more than 50 homes she believes were taken down with the same "misused" money.
"Money is tight and that money could have really made a difference," she said.
Action News reached out to Terrance Ashanta Barker, the City's Director of Neighborhoods to find out why they misused the federal money. He admitted it was a mistake; one neighbor like Devall say they can never recover from.
"Once it's demolished, you can't go back," she said.
The City says they have already paid back the $30,000 for the two demolitions.
Isn't this about more like 50 houses that the city demolished using funds they shouldn't have...not just 2?
Quote from: Springfielder on October 23, 2013, 10:41:56 AM
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-misuses-federal-dollars-to-demolish/4MWEeUx3Tka-d1mATDqh_Q.cspx)
QuoteACKSONVILLE Fla.-- As the City tore down walls of historic Springfield homes, neighbors tore through the City Code Compliance Division's every move. They believe they found one major mistake. The demolitions were being funded with federal dollars.
"It's very frustrating because this money could have been used to mothball the houses to remove the Blight to make renovations there are many things that could have been done," said Gloria Devall, a neighbor and Springfield preservationist.
Action News obtained a letter from the City's Code Compliance Office to Devall. In the letter the City admits two homes
were demolished with "non-eligible" funds.
"They're going to be punished," said Devall. She says there are more than 50 homes she believes were taken down with the same "misused" money.
"Money is tight and that money could have really made a difference," she said.
Action News reached out to Terrance Ashanta Barker, the City's Director of Neighborhoods to find out why they misused the federal money. He admitted it was a mistake; one neighbor like Devall say they can never recover from.
"Once it's demolished, you can't go back," she said.
The City says they have already paid back the $30,000 for the two demolitions.
Isn't this about more like 50 houses that the city demolished using funds they shouldn't have...not just 2?
It is way more than 2. There were 57 demolitions on 51 properties over 50 years old completed using NSP1 funds JUST IN ZIP CODE 32206! And no Section 106 reviews were done. PSOS has requested a list of ALL properties demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds and are awaiting the information. Stay tuned.....
Quote from: sheclown on October 23, 2013, 05:25:18 AM
"All the city can say is ooops."
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/4508537
Interesting. Here is what I am seeing right now.
The city says it has already paid back thousands of misused dollars. Now hold up here a minute.......They have paid back thousands in misused federal funds? Alrighty then. The city knew before they were approached by PSOS and others that they had "misspent" thousand of dollars in funding. This translates to "They knew all along that procedure was not being followed and did nothing to correct it. Someone in authority was compliant here, so who was that? Consider this for a moment, if the procedures were not being followed and the end result was that the city was paying for demolitions and someone was still "benefiting", it seems to me that in the end there was a financial vehicle in place for continued abuses that apparently remained well hidden and speaks to gross mismanagement and dare I say it, a potentially corrupt system.
Here's the deal. This will remain an "oops" and attempts will be made to frame this as a mistake, but the admission that the city has already paid back thousands is also an admission that they knew there was a problem and didn't do a damn thing about it.
What now needs to happen is a public request for the date of all reimbursements made to the feds and what those expenditures are. With city officials and members of council backing off of this issue as quickly as they are, they are protecting something, someone or someone's. Don't forget to make requests for all of the purchase orders for the jobs that the city reimbursed to get dates. This all smells to high heaven and it will not be an "oops" if it ends up impacting future federal revenue streams.
The other factor that cannot be overlooked is the potential for a conspiracy to work the system when it came to demo's and if that happened that is an issue for the SAO and the FBI.
Last night's City Council Meeting video is up. Sheclown begins her public comments at 1:24:20 followed immediately by JaxUnicorn's (that's me) comments.
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv)
And yes, even though the link says 2010, it is the 10/22/13 council meeting. :)
Kim, have you guys sent a written notice and complaint to the entire council?
I find it hard to believe that the violation of the rules and procedures required of the NSP funds was knowingly or willfully committed by everyone in the chain of command.
I always try to believe the best of people and certainly have reason to believe the best of quite a few people in local government based on experience.
As a citizen, I have a few questions I would like answered:
1.) Who was responsible for implementing or putting in place the required procedures for the NSP funds?
2.) Was the historical commission aware of the requirements for Section 106 reviews? Although, I have a question as to who would have performed the reviews for residences outside the designated historic areas.
3.) I have a list of questions regarding reimbursements, accounting and purchase orders not just for the demolitions but for all of the uses of the NSP funds. (my experience is that errors such as this are usually indicative of greater and deeper issues especially as it relates to use of funds.)
4.) What is HUD's position or that of its Inspector General?
Also, as an alternative scenario, is it possible that the individuals such as Ms. Scott pursued an agenda regardless of NSP funds and has the failure to follow procedure just become the saving grace in providing a way to challenge the behavior of an intransigent administrator.
Either way, I applaud the efforts of those involved in breaking this story.
a separate public records request inquired about a memorandum or letter of understanding b/t the Housing & N'hood Dept and Municipal Code to administer the demolition portion of the CDBG, NSP1, and NSP3 programs.
Evidentally, there is a LOU between the 2 departments for the CDBG program, which we received. For the NSP1 and NSP3, we received the following info:
QuotePlease see the attached email conversation (2008-2009 NSP Demolition & Clearance) containing a DRAFT copy of the MCC MOU for NSP1. Housing staff does not have an executed MOU, only the draft copy as attached to the email.
Regarding NSP3, "there was no supporting documentation found to support the need for an MOU" and staff is in the process of revising the NSP Substantial Amendments to remove that language.
Here's a cut and paste of the first part of the DRAFT NSP1 LOU (sorry, I don't know how to attach document):
QuoteLETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT
AND
ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
The Environmental and Compliance Department, Municipal Code Compliance Division, hereafter referred to as the Recipient and the Housing and Neighborhoods Department, hereafter referred to as HAND, agree to adhere to the provisions of this Letter of Understanding as outlined below, regarding the use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding of $1,000,000 for Clearance and Demolition activities.
The funds will be used to remove substandard and/or unsafe properties and structures in the NSP targeted areas. The Recipient, through various abatement activities will seek to remove or improve substandard and/or unsafe properties by performing abatement actions that include clearance, repair or demolition.
This agreement will become effective, upon its acceptance by all parties, for the period beginning the 15th day of February, 2009 and ending the 1st day of January, 2013.
I. PROGRAMMATIC
A. NSP funds will be used to cover applicable costs for the demolition of one hundred and twenty-five (125) unsafe structures identified by City Code Enforcement within the targeted areas only. The Recipient shall conduct the required one-page checklist and historic preservation environmental reviews for all properties slated for clearance and demolition activities. The environmental reviews shall be provided to HAND.
Items in bold, my emphasis, natch. Oops, indeed.
Thanks Reeves!
And speaking of those CDBG monies...from HUD's website:
Jacksonville's clearance and demolition dollars for the FY:
2003: $295k
2004: $375k
2005: $483k
2006: $436k
2007: $420k
2008: $512k
Still digging around for more recent years.
Ironically, one of the CDBG eligible activities is "historic preservation". Some cities actually receive quite a substantial amount of money to restore historic properties.
9th and Main could be restored using CDBG money -- Anne Lytle school or the Drew Mansion.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 23, 2013, 05:58:54 PM
Last night's City Council Meeting video is up. Sheclown begins her public comments at 1:24:20 followed immediately by JaxUnicorn's (that's me) comments.
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%2010-22-13.wmv)
And yes, even though the link says 2010, it is the 10/22/13 council meeting. :)
When watching these two passionate people speak to City Council, the thing that struck me the most was the lack of interest from the Council. Only Councilman Lumb asked a question. When being told of the possible misuse of millions of federal funds, the most pressing thing to one them was the use of the words Pissed and Damn. Because children could be watching. Hmm, it's OK for the children to hear about possible corruption in our government but not a couple of words that they can hear in most movies and TV shows these days. Good to know.
Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2013, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 22, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 22, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds. We shall see.
And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do. Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd. He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.
They were also the contracting company that took down the 100 year old Duckeeville house on Myrtle -- waiting to hear the funding source on that one too. Interesting story on that one. Original bid $7200. Change order for $7400. which brought the total job cost to a whopping $14,600.
Something to note about this demolition. The original $ 7,200.00 was low bid for wet demolition. The change order was for the Ooops, we found out we have to abate the asbestos. Except that in the file was a report from 2010 that stated the asbestos had to be abated so it was known already. Just another example of extreme and arrogant mismanagement on the part of Municipal Code Compliance's Chief or actually a good way to launder some extra cash to a favored contractor? We are still waiting on how this was funded. In any case, no 106 review on it and so if any federal funds were used, it is another $14,600.00 due back to the feds. Let's see, so far we think the tally could be up to $ 500,000.00 so far and we are still waiting for many public records requests to come through.
The thing to remember here is that when this is paid back, it must come from the regular city budget not any kind of federally supported program. So where will that funding come from? The police and Fireman's budget? The Library's? Maybe we could do without the top three or four MCC people and then move the Neighborhoods department into Public Works and do away with Mr Barker's position. That may pay back us taxpayers in about a year.
were procurement procedures followed for some of the nsp demos? say, was a formal bid done for the $70K++ demo of what seems to have been the Jewish CC?
Quote from: m74reeves on October 24, 2013, 07:59:47 AM
were procurement procedures followed for some of the nsp demos? say, was a formal bid done for the $70K++ demo of what seems to have been the Jewish CC?
Is this info available on a website or does it have to go through public records?
Procurement documens are available online. I'm digging thru them. However, I am sure we will find that in what are deemed "emergency" situations, the normal procurement process is bypassed. The two demolitions done on E 2nd were "emergency demolitions" and from what I've been told/found were not awarded via the Procurement process.
Quote from: strider on October 24, 2013, 07:49:52 AM
Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2013, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 22, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 22, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds. We shall see.
And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do. Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd. He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.
They were also the contracting company that took down the 100 year old Duckeeville house on Myrtle -- waiting to hear the funding source on that one too. Interesting story on that one. Original bid $7200. Change order for $7400. which brought the total job cost to a whopping $14,600.
Something to note about this demolition. The original $ 7,200.00 was low bid for wet demolition. The change order was for the Ooops, we found out we have to abate the asbestos. Except that in the file was a report from 2010 that stated the asbestos had to be abated so it was known already. Just another example of extreme and arrogant mismanagement on the part of Municipal Code Compliance's Chief or actually a good way to launder some extra cash to a favored contractor? We are still waiting on how this was funded. In any case, no 106 review on it and so if any federal funds were used, it is another $14,600.00 due back to the feds. Let's see, so far we think the tally could be up to $ 500,000.00 so far and we are still waiting for many public records requests to come through.
The thing to remember here is that when this is paid back, it must come from the regular city budget not any kind of federally supported program. So where will that funding come from? The police and Fireman's budget? The Library's? Maybe we could do without the top three or four MCC people and then move the Neighborhoods department into Public Works and do away with Mr Barker's position. That may pay back us taxpayers in about a year.
Strider, we are probably straying from the original thread topic, but the change order regarding the asbestos being found is good to note. According to Procurement procedures, each demolition bid must include a bid for an asbestos survey, the cost of an asbestos-free demolition, and a bid for a wet demolition (asbestos found). The award goes to the bidder with the lowest bid for the survey and asbestos-free demolition combined. Then when the survey is done and asbestos is found, the City has the right to rescind the award and re-award to the lowest "wet demolition" bid. See below:
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Mobile%20Uploads/ProcurementDemolitionTermsandConditions.jpg)
Now, what is interesting with the Myrtle Street demolition you reference, Michael Lloyd Hauling's survey/dry demo bid was $7,210, and a wet demo was $8,720. So, why is it that Michael Lloyd Hauling submitted a change request once asbestos was 'discovered' to add $7,400 when his original bid for a wet demo was $8,720. That's a wet demo cost of $14,610, $5,890 higher than his wet demolition bid. Sound fishy?
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Myrtle1504DemoBidTabulationSheet.jpg)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 23, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
Kim, have you guys sent a written notice and complaint to the entire council?
Diane, emails have been sent to the entire City Council numerous times regarding the inappropriate demolitions occuring within the Springfield Historic District. None of my emails have ever received a response.
I'd just like to give a big thank you to Preservation SOS for all their hard work. I think this is proof that SPAR is turning out to be a useless organization.
WOW.
Big ups to all of you who are doing the forensics!!
The fact that the city "re-paid thousands already" is indeed an admission misuse.
If the city council is not listening, and the mayor's office isn't listening, both are either severely negligent, or both are complicit.
What is the recourse here?
Do you take all of this to the FBI?
What are the channels to getting this misuse to stop?
On another note, WHY would we not be using these funds to restore?
Restoration employs more people, longer, and results in a house that is to be sold and occupied- raising property values = increasing tax revenue...
I am baffled by the short-sightedness of destruction over preservation, and why anyone would choose such a short term solution to blight, when it creates the long term damage of losing a historic district... something that other larger cities pride themselves on.
I am so glad yall are not letting this lie. Go get em!
Are city officials actively trying to keep parts of Jacksonville blighted? That's what it feels like.
I have to politely disagree with you. SPAR and Bill Hoff were a big help to us during the due diligence and purchase of our E 10th st location. They put us into contact with the right people in JSO to assist with concerns about what seemed like illegitimate activity near by. They helped with securing insurance on a historic structure. They helped explain and guide us though the COA process. Their assistance helped turn an abandoned / foreclosed building into the home for a viable business with a dozen employees.
Quote from: jaxequality on October 24, 2013, 11:20:57 PM
I'd just like to give a big thank you to Preservation SOS for all their hard work. I think this is proof that SPAR is turning out to be a useless organization.
This isn't about psos and spar. This is about Springfield and the city. We need to stand united
Tony,
I'm guessing you are in the old Vanderleigh space now, SPAR likes you because you fit the mold of what they are looking for. Any good neighbor could help with all those things. Bill is a great person, I agree. SPAR, however should be the leader in standing up for preservation as their name suggests. I am glad to hear that SPAR and PSOS are working more closely together though. I will be curious how you feel about SPAR should you get involved, it's a perfect group of 40 something white people who have their own agenda, maybe you fit that mold also. It just seems like SPAR should have been all over this issue from the get go and like the city they should be accountable.
Quote from: Tony B on October 25, 2013, 08:03:08 PM
I have to politely disagree with you. SPAR and Bill Hoff were a big help to us during the due diligence and purchase of our E 10th st location. They put us into contact with the right people in JSO to assist with concerns about what seemed like illegitimate activity near by. They helped with securing insurance on a historic structure. They helped explain and guide us though the COA process. Their assistance helped turn an abandoned / foreclosed building into the home for a viable business with a dozen employees.
Quote from: jaxequality on October 24, 2013, 11:20:57 PM
I'd just like to give a big thank you to Preservation SOS for all their hard work. I think this is proof that SPAR is turning out to be a useless organization.
xxx
Again. This is a discussion about the city's abuse of federal funds. Lets stay united
Save the houses
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 26, 2013, 09:01:51 AM
By law, before they can demolish a home more than 50 years old, except EXTREME emergency, they are required to do a 106 review for the historic officer. "Emergency" demolitions have been BADLY abused. And, to top it off, as far as we can tell, NOT ONE SINGLE 106 review has been done for ANY demolition.
Let's get back around to the subject of the post. If federal funds are being used on a property older than 50 years old, the City should be doing a Section 106 review. PERIOD.
And the city's definition of "EMERGENCY" does NOT excuse them from doing this review. Let me repeat that. If the City deems the structure an emergency AND they want to use federal funds to demolish it, THEY MUST STILL DO THE REQUIRED SECTION 106 REVIEW.
HUD only waives that review requirement in cases of a federally or state declared emergency, say if we had a natural disaster or something.
I think it is obvious that if SPAR Council had been doing a good job on Preservation, Preservation SOS would not exist. It exists because there was a need. What is truly important here at this point is not what SPAR Council may or may not have done right or wrong, it is what we all do moving forward. SPAR Council, the organization, can not be held responsible for the issues that we are facing. At worst, the organization used poor judgement and awakened that sleeping monster and now we all have do our best to put that monster down. That monster is Municipal Code Compliance and it is doing harm even as we speak.
PSOS and SPAR Council are talking and that is a good thing. The more united front we can present, the better. The NSP and the coming CDBG issue has been called huge by some and so as more and more gets brought out to the public eye, more and more will help us get to the bottom of this issue and help us make the changes in both the city ordinances and department polices so that MCC can start helping Jacksonville become the place to go for Historic Preservation.
Quote from: m74reeves on October 26, 2013, 11:09:38 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 26, 2013, 09:01:51 AM
By law, before they can demolish a home more than 50 years old, except EXTREME emergency, they are required to do a 106 review for the historic officer. "Emergency" demolitions have been BADLY abused. And, to top it off, as far as we can tell, NOT ONE SINGLE 106 review has been done for ANY demolition.
Let's get back around to the subject of the post. If federal funds are being used on a property older than 50 years old, the City should be doing a Section 106 review. PERIOD.
And the city's definition of "EMERGENCY" does NOT excuse them from doing this review. Let me repeat that. If the City deems the structure an emergency AND they want to use federal funds to demolish it, THEY MUST STILL DO THE REQUIRED SECTION 106 REVIEW.
HUD only waives that review requirement in cases of a federally or state declared emergency, say if we had a natural disaster or something.
And I am assuming that they cannot now go back and say, "Gee, we 're sorry we didn't do them up-front, but here are all the 106 reviews for all those illegally demolished houses" After the fact won't cut it.
What I am waiting for is that we find out that all of those demolitions were reported by MCC as being less than 50 years old. Can you say fraud?
Quote
And I am assuming that they cannot now go back and say, "Gee, we 're sorry we didn't do them up-front, but here are all the 106 reviews for all those illegally demolished houses" After the fact won't cut it.
It would be hard for the City to produce that given that the Section 106 review involves the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). That would be a boatload of reviews. We know for a fact that the SHPO never reviewed either of the 2nd Street properties. I suspect that the case is similar for these other NSP demos, too.
Wouldn't they have to turn in SOMETHING to the feds to show how they spent the money? If they said or implied that none of the demolitions were older than 49 years old, no review would have been expected, correct? Then later if it comes out that they turned in fraudulent paperwork, does that make this criminal?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 24, 2013, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: strider on October 24, 2013, 07:49:52 AM
Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2013, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 22, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 22, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one. When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment. Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how. Working on that right now.
We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds. We shall see.
And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do. Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd. He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.
They were also the contracting company that took down the 100 year old Duckeeville house on Myrtle -- waiting to hear the funding source on that one too. Interesting story on that one. Original bid $7200. Change order for $7400. which brought the total job cost to a whopping $14,600.
Something to note about this demolition. The original $ 7,200.00 was low bid for wet demolition. The change order was for the Ooops, we found out we have to abate the asbestos. Except that in the file was a report from 2010 that stated the asbestos had to be abated so it was known already. Just another example of extreme and arrogant mismanagement on the part of Municipal Code Compliance's Chief or actually a good way to launder some extra cash to a favored contractor? We are still waiting on how this was funded. In any case, no 106 review on it and so if any federal funds were used, it is another $14,600.00 due back to the feds. Let's see, so far we think the tally could be up to $ 500,000.00 so far and we are still waiting for many public records requests to come through.
The thing to remember here is that when this is paid back, it must come from the regular city budget not any kind of federally supported program. So where will that funding come from? The police and Fireman's budget? The Library's? Maybe we could do without the top three or four MCC people and then move the Neighborhoods department into Public Works and do away with Mr Barker's position. That may pay back us taxpayers in about a year.
Strider, we are probably straying from the original thread topic, but the change order regarding the asbestos being found is good to note. According to Procurement procedures, each demolition bid must include a bid for an asbestos survey, the cost of an asbestos-free demolition, and a bid for a wet demolition (asbestos found). The award goes to the bidder with the lowest bid for the survey and asbestos-free demolition combined. Then when the survey is done and asbestos is found, the City has the right to rescind the award and re-award to the lowest "wet demolition" bid. See below:
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Mobile%20Uploads/ProcurementDemolitionTermsandConditions.jpg)
Now, what is interesting with the Myrtle Street demolition you reference, Michael Lloyd Hauling's survey/dry demo bid was $7,210, and a wet demo was $8,720. So, why is it that Michael Lloyd Hauling submitted a change request once asbestos was 'discovered' to add $7,400 when his original bid for a wet demo was $8,720. That's a wet demo cost of $14,610, $5,890 higher than his wet demolition bid. Sound fishy?
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Myrtle1504DemoBidTabulationSheet.jpg)
I missed this some how. Yes, this is correct. The right way was to pull the demolition contract once asbestos was found and give it to the lowest bidder for wet demolition, which was, oddly enough, the same contractor. So there are two huge issues here. The first is the fact that the file says an asbestos survey was already done so it was a given it was to be a wet demolition to start with. The second is the fact that from the above, the cost should have been $ 8,720.00. So now the questions are why did Kimberly Scott allow the contractor to overcharge the city $ 5,880.00 and who really benefited from those unearned funds?
This isn't really straying form the ordinal topic because more than likely when we finally get the account information we will find this was funded from that $400K of NSP3 funds that MCC was given. And the fact that it is very much indicative of an abuse of power on the part of Kimberly Scott.
Strider, I think that the bids show the cost of an asbestos survey, dry & wet demo.
Based on the other bids, I'm completely unsure as to the methodology these guys use to bid a wet demo, but they're all over the place from $15k to $40k. The dry demos are a bit more in-line with each other.
That being said, and based on only what's in front of me, I have no issue with a change order being issued. This could just be a simple screw-up by the estimator and the total cost of roughly $15k is still the lowest bid.
But.....
In most cases, when these bids are awarded, the purchaser probably looks no farther than the lowest number in the spread sheet. There are a few things that would need to be determined to see if anything truly nefarious is going on with the bidding.
A couple off the top of my head:
1.) Does Lloyd Hauling have a habit of lowballing bids and then submitting change orders to 'make up' the difference?
2.) Is there a pattern within the department of the total amounts paid to the winning bid being more expensive than the next highest bidder?
3.) Are the RFPs open to everyone or do they only get sent to a few select bidders?
4.) What are the requirements for making the shortlist?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on October 27, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
Strider, I think that the bids show the cost of an asbestos survey, dry & wet demo.
Based on the other bids, I'm completely unsure as to the methodology these guys use to bid a wet demo, but they're all over the place from $15k to $40k. The dry demos are a bit more in-line with each other.
That being said, and based on only what's in front of me, I have no issue with a change order being issued. This could just be a simple screw-up by the estimator and the total cost of roughly $15k is still the lowest bid.
But.....
In most cases, when these bids are awarded, the purchaser probably looks no farther than the lowest number in the spread sheet. There are a few things that would need to be determined to see if anything truly nefarious is going on with the bidding.
A couple off the top of my head:
1.) Does Lloyd Hauling have a habit of lowballing bids and then submitting change orders to 'make up' the difference?
2.) Is there a pattern within the department of the total amounts paid to the winning bid being more expensive than the next highest bidder?
3.) Are the RFPs open to everyone or do they only get sent to a few select bidders?
4.) What are the requirements for making the shortlist?
Tell me something, if you hired that contractor yourself and told him that he had to bid a survey, a non-asbestos demo and one with abating the asbestos when you knew you already had a report that said the house needed the asbestos abated, would you accept a change order for only doing what he bid $8,620.00 to do? If it was your dollars, I suspect not. If fact, as you already knew it needed asbestos abatement, why would you let the contract out for non-asbestos demo? And why let a contractor turn in a change order to do that abatement for over $5,000.000 more than he bid? Frankly, the huge difference in costs, even with the change order, makes me wonder if it was done properly. Easy to be low bid if you figure out a way around the rules. Of course, the other bidder (Arwood) may have simply not wanted to do a wet demo so bid high.
There are two companies, P & G Land Clearing and Lloyds Hauling, the owners are related and we have seen both show up at each others demos, that have gotten 80% of the last 50 odd demolition contracts, including the ones not let out for bid because they were declared emergencies. We are still trying to get the invoicing for many of these demolitions. This mayoral administration and the various division heads do not make getting the public record requests very easy these days so it just takes extra time to get them.
I would have asked him to take another look at his bios and revise the price. If he was still the low bidder, he gets the work. If not, the contract is awarded to the next guy.
Edit: Sometimes mistakes happen. That's why i emphasised determining whether or not low balling then receiving change orders
was a pattern with that contractor.
I would more readily see it as a mistake and accept that overall the price was fair (if it was...) except that everyone should have known already that it required asbestos abatement (wet demo) as its in the file. Mismanagement on the part of MCC? Something done on purpose?
If the invoice had been for the $225 plus the $8620 and then there was a change order, it would look less suspicious. It would look like the guy said he made a mistake and could not do the job for the bid. They asked how much and he was low bid anyway. Though one has to realize that the bid amounts were most likely known by then so easy to be the low bid. Plus his relative was second in line.
This is only part of the issue with the NSP funds. 1.4 million between NSP1 and 3. All for demolition and clearance. All of which appears to have been mismanaged. The big question is becoming if that mismanagement is due to people unable to perform their jobs or purposeful. When a Department Chief is in her position for 6 plus years with two different Mayors, hard to believe the rules were not known so it makes it less likely it is just poor job performance.
If you are in the demo business, you should know how to price and estimate. These are not complicated structures, and based on age, almost guaranteed to have asbestos. Absolutely no reason to get extra money.
QuoteSec. 5311.* Remedies for noncompliance with community development requirements[* Section 111 of the Act]
Features
Also in this Section:
(a) Notice and hearing by Secretary
(b) Referral of matters to Attorney General
(c) Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals
From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5311]
Notice and hearing; termination, reduction, or limitation of payments by Secretary
If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, shall--
terminate payments to the recipient under this chapter, or
reduce payments to the recipient under this chapter by an amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not expended in accordance with this chapter, or
limit the availability of payments under this chapter to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such failure to comply.
Referral of matters to Attorney General; institution of civil action by Attorney General
In lieu of, or in addition to, any action authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may, if he has reason to believe that a recipient has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.
Upon such a referral the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this chapter which was not expended in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals; filing of record of proceedings in court by Secretary; affirmance, etc., of findings of Secretary; exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court; review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari or certification
Any recipient which receives notice under subsection (a) of this section of the termination, reduction, or limitation of payments under this chapter may, within sixty days after receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action. The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
The Secretary shall file in the court record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection has been urged before the Secretary.
The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify his findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and he shall also file such modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and shall also file his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action.
Upon the filing of the record with the court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.
(Pub. L. 93-383, title I, Sec. 111, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 650.)
Legislative Annotations
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Fcomm_planning%2Fcommunitydevelopment%2Frulesandregs%2Flaws%2Fsec5311
NSP is under CDBG and governed by the same regulations.
Just saw you on the news Gloria, it was another great piece. I see the city now says they will no longer use the FED funds for demo's. That's all fine but do they suppose no one should answer for the misuse of the funding all along? Seems to me Ms. Kim Scott was in the drivers seat while regulations continued to be violated and well knew that the proper paperwork was not being done. If she claims she did not know then that spells incompetence. The other thing the city will still have to answer is why Scott had "Carte Blanche" when it came to picking contractors for the demo's where funds were misused and why all the contracts seemed to go to the same family members? Lot's in the way of answers still remain as well as the how and when of what will be done in the case of Kim Scott. I hope they realize that this is not over.
Just seems to me that it is easy to submit a "change order" for a wet demolition once you've been awarded the contract. You've already seen the other bids for the wet demo, so the change order is easy to submit to still be the lowest. There's NO WAY a reputable demo contractor should make a $5,000 mistake in a bid. And if he does, then next time he'll be more careful. A bid is a bid...if you accept the contract you are awarded, you should be held to the price you quoted.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-will-no-longer-use-federal-program-to/C68z73hZVE6pi2iKQWtilA.cspx
Now...about those emergency demolitions.
Yes, the last from the city almost sounds like a threat. The city will still do emergency demolitions, just won't use those federal funds. The problem is that only person who determines if something is an emergency is Kimberly Scott, the Department Chief. That is one of the problems we have had with this entire issue all along. The two houses that Mr Barker has admitted were paid for improperly were emergency demolitions according to MS Scott, but not per the professional engineers. Everyone as been told that Ms Scott's decisions are not to be questioned by the Historic Preservation Commission nor Joel McEachin, head of the Historic Preservation department, this determined by Mr Jason Teal of the Office of General Counsel.
Since no one would listen to reason, since Ms Scott is being protected by Mr Teal, since the HPC is not doing it's job, we had to go after the funding for demolitions. And look at what we have found. Is this why Mr Teal has been protecting Ms Scott? Is this why the HPC was told not to question her decisions? Because they did not want this found out? Sort of indicates that the Office of General Counsel may indeed have know about this abuse all along.
So, City of Jacksonville, continue to allow Ms Scott to hold her position, continue to allow the Office of General Counsel to protect her and we will continue to show the public how badly Mr. Barker and Ms. Scott have been handling the millions of Federal funds they were entrusted with.
And, we've only just begun...
http://www.youtube.com/v/rSIr5a4L8os?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
...ain't that right Kim?
Quote from: sheclown on October 29, 2013, 07:00:45 PM
And, we've only just begun...
http://www.youtube.com/v/rSIr5a4L8os?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
...ain't that right Kim?
Ab-so-freaking-lutely Gloria! Hold your breath folks....we pissed people are about to break the damn floodgates WIDE OPEN! Oops...can't say those words at City Council...can I use those words on this forum? :)
Great song too!!
Quote from: sheclown on October 22, 2013, 05:44:08 AM
I received this on Thursday, October 17 via email.
Quote
Gloria DeVall
Preservation SOS
Hi Ms. DeVall,
The City of Jacksonville (the "City") through its Housing and Community Development Division ("HCDD") has received your email dated September 4, 2013 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). In this email, you raise concerns regarding the City's use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP") funds in the demolition of properties at 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street in the Historic Springfield District. The City has conducted a thorough review of the concerns raised in your email and provides the following information to address those concerns.
Background on the 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street
Municipal Code Compliance Division's ("MCCD") records regarding the two above referenced properties demonstrated that both 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street had a long history of continued code compliance violations and continued deterioration of each properties' structural integrity.
More specifically, records further showed that the owners of 129 E. 2nd Street and 253 E. 2nd Street failed to address code violations during the course of enforcement (as long as 21years for the 253 E. 2nd Street property) and/or to perform any repair work. Subsequent separate independent structural engineer reviews and visual inspections by MCCD's code compliance officers later confirmed that continued deterioration of each property's structural conditions created imminently unsafe conditions which warranted emergency demolition actions.
Use of NSP Funds
The NSP program was established by HUD for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. Demolitions are one of the eligible activities that NSP funds may be used to advance this purpose. NSP funds are paid on a reimbursement basis.
With regard to using federal funds (such as NSP) to reimburse the demolitions of properties within the Historic Springfield District, the National Historic Preservation Act requires that a Section 106 review (with the exception of certain disaster conditions) be conducted prior to the reimbursement of such federal funds.
Our investigation into the two referenced demolitions identified that the Section 106 reviews were not completed. Since these Section 106 reviews were not completed and there were no available exceptions, these demolitions were not eligible for reimbursement under the City's NSP program. MCCD has provided the necessary account numbers from its non-federal funding sources to reimburse NSP and the entries necessary to return the program funds to the City's NSP program funds are being completed. HUD has been informed that we have concluded that these demolitions are not eligible for NSP reimbursement and that all accounting actions are being finalized to ensure that only MCCD's non-federal funding sources apply to these demolitions.
Proactive Improvements
Although your use of NSP funds concern has been completely addressed and is being finalized, I wanted to inform you that we are making the necessary process and procedural improvements within the City to improve and increase communication and training, ensure the proper use of federal funds and compliance with federal historic preservation requirements.
The City is in the process of preparing its NSP Quarterly Performance Reports ("QPR") for both NSP1 and NSP3 for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2013. Staff will pay particular attention to the quality of the information being included in those reports in attempt to address any concerns that you have raised regarding the level of detail available to the community. These reports will be available on the City's website on or around November 1, 2013.
Thank you very much for your email. We welcome feedback from the citizens that we serve and look forward to the positive changes that can be made to increase communication and transparency between the various divisions of the City and the community as a whole.
TAB
Terrance L. Ashanta-Barker, JD
Director of Neighborhoods
City of Jacksonville (Ed Ball Building)
214 North Hogan Street, 5th Floor
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Office: (904) 255-7238 | Fax: (904) 588-0519
Email: tashanta-barker@coj.net
Connect with Mayor Brown and the City of Jacksonville!
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Blog Google
For general information, contact 630-CITY (2489).
View our calendar, sign up for newsletters or learn about volunteer opportunities.
*** Please note that under Florida's very broad public records law, email communications to and from city officials are subject to public disclosure. ***
It is November 4th. Are these on the website? If anyone has time, perhaps we could find them??
City of Jacksonville Action Plan -- FY 2011 - 2012
page 11
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/43fb0264-5527-4a9b-b102-1eb1a271a353.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/43fb0264-5527-4a9b-b102-1eb1a271a353.jpg.html)
http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/docs/housing-and-community-development/community-development/2011-12-action-plan-7-15-11-%281%29.aspx
QuoteTHE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 20, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds
My Administration is committed to ensuring that public funds are expended responsibly and in a transparent manner. Last month, I signed into law the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," Public Law 111-5 (the "Recovery Act" or "Act"), an investment package designed to provide a necessary boost to our economy in these difficult times and to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle class. The Recovery Act is designed to stimulate the economy through measures that, among other things, modernize the Nation's infrastructure, jump start American energy independence, expand high-quality educational opportunities, preserve and improve access to affordable health care, provide middle-class tax relief, and protect those in greatest need. It is not intended to fund projects for special interests.
In implementing the Recovery Act, we have undertaken unprecedented efforts to ensure the responsible distribution of funds for the Act's purposes and to provide public transparency and accountability of expenditures. We must not allow Recovery Act funds to be distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure. We must also empower executive department and agency officials to exercise their available discretion and judgment to help ensure that Recovery Act funds are expended for projects that further the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act and are not used for imprudent projects.
To these ends, I hereby direct that for any further commitments, obligations, or expenditures of funds under the Recovery Act, the head of each executive department or agency shall immediately take all necessary steps, to the extent consistent with the Act and other applicable law, to comply with this memorandum.
Section 1. Ensuring Merit-Based Decisionmaking for Grants and Other Forms of Federal Financial Assistance Under the Recovery Act. (a) Executive departments and agencies shall develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria that will guide their available discretion in committing, obligating, or expending funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance. Such criteria shall be consistent with legal requirements, may be tailored to the particular funding activity, and shall be formulated to ensure that the funding furthers the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act. To this end, merit-based selection criteria shall be designed to support particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding that have, to the greatest extent, a demonstrated or potential ability to: (i) deliver programmatic results; (ii) achieve economic stimulus by optimizing economic activity and the number of jobs created or saved in relation to the Federal dollars obligated; (iii) achieve long-term public benefits by, for example, investing in technological advances in science and health to increase economic efficiency and improve quality of life; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; fostering energy independence; or improving educational quality; and (iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's transparency and accountability objectives.
(b) No considerations contained in oral or written communications from any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding shall supersede or supplant consideration by executive departments and agencies of such projects, applications, or applicants for funding pursuant to applicable merit-based criteria.
Sec. 2. Avoiding Funding of Imprudent Projects. (a) Funds under the Recovery Act shall not be committed, obligated, or expended by any executive department or agency, and shall not be used by any State or local governmental or private grantee or awardee, to support projects of the type described in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act, which states that "[n]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by any State or local government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."
(b) In exercising their available discretion to commit, obligate, or expend funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance, executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall not approve or otherwise support funding for projects that are similar to those described in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act.
(c) In exercising their available discretion to commit, obligate, or expend funds under the Recovery Act for grants and other forms of Federal financial assistance, executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall not approve or otherwise support any project, application, or applicant for funding that is imprudent or that does not further the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Act. To this end, executive departments and agencies shall exercise their available discretion to decline approving or otherwise supporting particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding unless the department or agency has affirmatively determined, in advance, that the project, application, or applicant has a demonstrated or potential ability to: (i) deliver programmatic results; (ii) achieve economic stimulus by optimizing economic activity and the number of jobs created or saved in relation to the Federal dollars obligated; (iii) achieve long-term public benefits by, for example, investing in technological advances in science and health to increase economic efficiency and improve quality of life; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; fostering energy independence; or improving educational quality; or (iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's transparency and accountability objectives.
(d) Where executive departments or agencies lack discretion under the Recovery Act to refuse funding for projects similar to those described in section 1604 of Division A of the Act, or other projects that the executive department or agency deems imprudent or as not furthering the job creation, economic recovery, or other purposes of the Act, the department or agency shall consult immediately with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the project and its funding requirements. Where legally permissible, the department or agency shall:
(i) delay funding of the project for 30 days, or the longest period permitted by law if less than 30 days, in order to ensure adequate opportunity for public scrutiny of the project prior to commitment of funds; and
(ii) publish a description of the proposed project (or project plan) and its funding requirements on the agency's recovery website as soon as practicable before or after commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds for the project.
(e) Executive departments and agencies, including their respective Offices of Inspector General, shall monitor compliance with the prohibition in section 1604 of Division A of the Recovery Act, referenced in paragraph (a) above, by contractors, grantees, and other recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipients). If a department or agency believes that a recipient has not complied with section 1604, then the department or agency shall (i) promptly notify the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; and (ii) take appropriate corrective action that may include, but not be limited to, disallowing or otherwise recovering improperly spent amounts, imposing additional requirements on the recipient to ensure compliance with section 1604 (and other applicable prohibitions and obligations), initiating a proceeding for administrative civil penalties, and initiating a proceeding for suspension and debarment.
Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications. (a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.,
concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.
(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.
(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication.
(d) An executive department or agency official may communicate orally with registered lobbyists concerning general Recovery Act policy issues; provided, however, that such oral communications shall not extend to or touch upon particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding, and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing: (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.
(e) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communications with any person or entity concerning general Recovery Act policy issues, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such issues is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. If so, the official shall comply with paragraph (d) above.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The Director of OMB shall assist and, as appropriate, issue guidance to the heads of executive departments and agencies to carry out their responsibilities under this memorandum. Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of OMB shall review the implementation of this memorandum by executive departments and agencies and shall forward to me any recommendations for modifications or revisions to this memorandum.
(b) This memorandum does not apply to tax-related provisions in Division B of the Recovery Act.
(c) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(d) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and all OMB implementing guidance, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations.
(e) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 5. Publication. The Director of OMB is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-20-09/
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/d6e5b6a2-9031-488a-a582-819b19dbb526.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/d6e5b6a2-9031-488a-a582-819b19dbb526.jpg.html)
Section 110 of the Environmental Review states:
Quote(k) Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm
^Regarding that last part, I get the impression many of our local decision makers truly believe the "circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created." I only hope the feds are in strong disagreement.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on November 11, 2013, 02:07:18 PM
^Regarding that last part, I get the impression many of our local decision makers truly believe the "circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created." I only hope the feds are in strong disagreement.
The "after consultation" part is the problem, they never did the reviews, consulted with the Feds, or followed any of the other procedures required before improperly spending the funds.
QuoteSection 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f)
The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm
Federal Funds for the fiscal Year 2011-2012
CDBG 6Million ( Community Development Block Grant -- housing and community development)
HOME 2.2 Million (Affordable housing -- home ownership programs)
HOPWA 2.8 Million (Housing opportunities for persons with Aids)
ESG 296 k (Emergency Shelter Grant )
CDBG-R 1.8 Million (Job creation and transportation)
Homeless Prevention 2.7 Million
NSP 1 26 Million (for use only in zip codes 32206, 32208, 32209, 32244, 32254) -- rehabbed 62 homes, built 25 homes and demolished 181 homes.
NSP 3 7 Million (for use in the Eastside & Springfield community exclusively)
For a grand total of 49 Million dollars in federal funds
http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/docs/housing-and-community-development/community-development/2011-12-action-plan-7-15-11-%281%29.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/us/blighted-cities-prefer-razing-to-rebuilding.html?pagewanted=1
The City of Jacksonville's 2011-2012 CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report) to HUD is available on the City of Jacksonville's website and on Page 42, located within Section IV, HOME Narrative Statements contains a NSP Summary (FY 2011/2012) that states:
QuoteFinally, in an effort to effectively address blight and foreclosure, NSP has contracted with Code Enforcement to demolish unsightly structures. For the fiscal year, 23 unsafe and ill-used homes were demolished.
I asked three questions regarding this statement:
1. Can you please provide me with the addresses of the 23 homes demolished?
2. Can you please explain how demolishing structures addresses foreclosure?
3. Can you please explain what is meant by an "ill-used" structure?
Attached is the email string regarding my questions and the answers from the City. I forwarded the list of 23 properties to the State Historic Preservation Office in Talahassee and asked if the 20 properties that were over 50 years old had Section 106 reviews performed. The SHPO's answer was NO. The total current demolition liens against these 20 properties comes to a total of
$79,831.38! :o
This MUST be refunded to HUD. This my dear Jacksonville friends....is only the very TIP of the iceburg!!
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg1.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg2.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg3.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg4.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg5.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg6.jpg)
Just to clarify things a bit. I hope everyone reading this (including you, Ms Scott) understands that doing 106 reviews is a federal requirement and must be done before spending the money. While it is very true that demolition is an eligible use for the NSP1 and 3 funds, the purpose of requiring 106 reviews is to determine if that demolition requested is truly needed and just doing a 106 review is not an automatic approval of that demolition. In addition, clearances can require a 106 review as well, so acts like boarding, while certainly eligible uses for the funds, may also require a 106 review. You can not go back after the fact and say, sorry, we forgot to do the 106 so here it is. It does not work that way. So, to date, based on various e-mails and phone conversations, the total the city seems to on the hook for is currently at least $ 584,290.00 and growing steadily. All thanks to Kimberly Scott and the Municipal Code Compliance Department.
Here's a question for you, if you worked for a regular corporation and you ran one of its departments so incompetently that it cost the company over a half a million dollars and potentially that much more in lawsuits, would you still have a job?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on December 13, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
The City of Jacksonville's 2011-2012 CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report) to HUD is available on the City of Jacksonville's website and on Page 42, located within Section IV, HOME Narrative Statements contains a NSP Summary (FY 2011/2012) that states:
QuoteFinally, in an effort to effectively address blight and foreclosure, NSP has contracted with Code Enforcement to demolish unsightly structures. For the fiscal year, 23 unsafe and ill-used homes were demolished.
I asked three questions regarding this statement:
1. Can you please provide me with the addresses of the 23 homes demolished?
2. Can you please explain how demolishing structures addresses foreclosure?
3. Can you please explain what is meant by an "ill-used" structure?
Attached is the email string regarding my questions and the answers from the City. I forwarded the list of 23 properties to the State Historic Preservation Office in Talahassee and asked if the 20 properties that were over 50 years old had Section 106 reviews performed. The SHPO's answer was NO. The total current demolition liens against these 20 properties comes to a total of $79,831.38! :o
This MUST be refunded to HUD. This my dear Jacksonville friends....is only the very TIP of the iceburg!!
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg1.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg2.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg3.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg4.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg5.jpg)
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/Section106ReviewInquiryPg6.jpg)
Very good research and work. National news story and like you said the tip of the iceberg.
Palms Fish Camp and a million bucks and you never even open the door.
So much more! Have a surplus waterfront JEA house to sell.
The crushing of the Public Trust.
After a large meeting last Friday, I believe the city now understands that section 106 reviews will need to be done on all properties 50 years or older whether they are in a recognized historic district or not.
This is very good news for the urban core.
If we know of properties in the urban core which are not landmarked or in the historic district but have significance, we need to document this and share this information with Joel McEachin to place in his files.
Let's make sure we don't lose what we have left of our historic structures in the urban core.
While it is great that they now know about the laws they were supposed to be following all along, was it really a case that they just didn't know? How can that be when we hear how wonderful Kimberly Scott does her job? She has a masters degree after all. Is she corrupt or just incompetent? What about Elaine Spenser? While MCC was given one million, Elaine Spenser's department was given control of 26 Million from NSP1 alone. Did she not know about this? Isn't she supposed to monitor what MCC did with the million dollars that went through her department?
The Mayor apparently has put a bunch of either corrupt or incompetent people in control of the millions intended to help, not harm, the urban core areas and yet do we hear that they are being replaced by folk who can do better? No, we hear that some of them (Ms Scott and Mr. Prado for starters) are going to be promoted. Sadly, that says a lot about our Mayor.
Quote from: sheclown on March 27, 2014, 05:46:20 PM
After a large meeting last Friday, I believe the city now understands that section 106 reviews will need to be done on all properties 50 years or older whether they are in a recognized historic district or not.
This is very good news for the urban core.
Truth be told, they should have
ALREADY understood the requirement. But what we now know is that city officials were told
IN PERSON BY HUD OFFICIALS what is required when utilizing federal funds. There is no more "we didn't know" excuse.
It appears Jax now owes HUD $705k:
QuoteJacksonville owes the federal government $160,000 for breaking rules about demolishing old houses — and could owe another $545,000 if it doesn't fix problems involving building repairs, a federal report says.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development outlined those problems last month, after a HUD team spent a week checking how well the city lives up to requirements set for using federal grants.
The answer, says the report, is not great.
"Basically every file reviewed had compliance issues," said the report from HUD's Jacksonville field office, adding: "it is clear that the city of Jacksonville currently lacks the capacity to ensure compliance."
full article: http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-06-11/story/hud-jacksonville-owes-feds-160000-rules-violations-when-demolishing#cxrecs_s
Actually, when you read the report, it could be higher than the 705K. In one case, houses were built too close to a hazardous site. If the site issues can not be mitigated, the funds will have to be paid back as well. In another case, funds intended to be used for owner occupied homes seem to have been used to help finance rentals.
In addition, the reports states that it was not an exhaustive audit. We know that there are an addition 164 demolitions out there that were not handled properly and HUD can indeed ask for those funds back as well. Based on this report, just imagine how much more they could find if they choose too.
While the Mayors office made a point that some of the issues dated back to 2009 before this administration, there are constants to be found. For the Demolition and Clearance issues, the big constant was Ms. Kimberly Scott, who was just promoted by the Mayor while City Council sang her phrases. Perhaps they should have done some research first.