Losing Springfield
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2592471004_6KDCHWZ-M.jpg)
Two houses, each over 100 years old have been lost in Springfield within the last thirty days.
These are called "emergency" demolitions - although as anyone who has driven down East 2nd street will testify - nothing much has changed with the structures in years. No new emergency situations have occurred, no lightning strike, no fire over the weekend. No hurricane winds or earthquakes shaking the foundations.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-losing-springfield (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-losing-springfield)
Drove past this Friday on my way home. Very sad. Also noticed the cop car sitting out there too. Who is this woman? and why is she able to wield such power? Is she an appointment by the Mayor? or does she work under Planning or Public Works?
Quote from: fsujax on June 24, 2013, 08:09:24 AM
Drove past this Friday on my way home. Very sad. Also noticed the cop car sitting out there too. Who is this woman? and why is she able to wield such power? Is she an appointment by the Mayor? or does she work under Planning or Public Works?
The demolition of historic structures by the City of Jacksonville is nothing short of a travesty. Kimberly Scott was appointed to her position in November 2007.
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.
MAybe it's time to contact Ken Amaro, Jim Piggot or Action News and let them investigate this and put it on the airwaves.
Quote from: mbwright on June 24, 2013, 08:20:31 AM
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.
oh please spare the drama, there is no fed law violated. If people would maintain there property we wouldn't be having this conversation
Quote from: civil42806 on June 24, 2013, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: mbwright on June 24, 2013, 08:20:31 AM
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.
oh please spare the drama, there is no fed law violated. If people would maintain there property we wouldn't be having this conversation
Actually, you are wrong. While common sense says yes, if the owners did a better job, then we would not have this problem, Ms Scott and her Municipal Code Compliance Department can either chose to help people or hinder them. They consistently chose to hinder them and make it harder for even the most caring owner to do the right thing. And yes, Springfield is a federally listed Historic District and as such is protected under federal laws. It appears that the city, certainly lead by Ms Scott, is using Federal funds to demolish historic houses. If indeed so, then she certainly is breaking federal laws, even above the fact that both the Federal and the city laws charge her with PROTECTING the historic structures, not demolishing them.
Think of it this way. Once the city removes some of an owners property rights by having the authority to dictate windows issues, siding type, ETC, it also takes some of the responsibility for the preservation of these homes. The city becomes a de facto partner in the house.
The ordinances all say "protect" in regards to the cities responsibility towards these historic homes. Once the area accepts the federal designation, it also accepts the responsibility of protect these homes. All of this because these homes are intended to transcend one owner or even a hundred owners. They are intended to be here for all future generations. Today's owners become as much caretaker as owner.
If you are a partner in a house and your partner doesn't do his part, do you pick up the slack and get it done or do you tear it down to spite yourself? That is what Ms. Scott is doing, tearing down historic houses to spite all of us.
"Think of it this way. Once the city removes some of an owners property rights by having the authority to dictate windows issues, siding type, ETC, it also takes some of the responsibility for the preservation of these homes. The city becomes a de facto partner in the house. "
Actually no, that's not a fed issue. Nor does the city accept any responsibility for a home just because its in a preservation area. If you think that it explains a lot. You own a home in a historic district then you assume the responsibility for that property. the "city" otherwise known as the taxpayers do NOT assume anything, Not the preservation or the maintenance of your home
I understand the consternation about the home demolition. Loved living in downtown Charleston and Savannah. But the homes have to be maintained. As far as laws being broken, sure there are lawyers on this web site that can answer that better than i
what federal statue is not being followed protecting a historic district in springfield?
"If you think about it, there must be a reason why we have both a Federal and a County Courthouse downtown, right?'"
That has nothing to do with question. Is there a federal law being violated if so, what is it? And the city does not assume responsibility for any property in a historic district that It does not own.
I'm not claiming that it just affects springfield or riverside or any other historic distric let it be savannah or any other wonderful area. whats the federal statute that regulates a city authorized historic district
Please your not talking abut the nrhp issue are you? LOl don't think anyone will be hauled up to court on that
It is cited in the article, the local section, at the end "Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions." No consideration was given, no COA was obtained.
In addition federal monies aren't supposed to be used to tear down structures in a NATIONALLY designated historic district (there can be local designations too FYI. SPR is NATIONAL). CDBG money is federal money. The mayor himself said the money was used for demolitions CDBG money gets filtered through state and local offices so it can be called "local." But it aint
When I am done with my work day, I will go back and post the federal statues and local ordinances that govern this. But rest assured that as much as the city wants to say it has no responsibly in maintaining it's federally designated historic structures, it's own ordinances say otherwise.
What do you think it means when it says the city must protect it's historic structures? What does it mean when it gives itself the power to not only control what an owner does with their property but also repair it without the owners consent? Or, as they are doing now, tear them down. You can not take control of the fate of someone's property without their consent without also taking responsibility for that property.
Ask Ms Scott and she will tell you they do indeed have responsibility for the"unsafe" structures. They even can prevent the owner from entering their own property. If you have to ask permission to enter, how can you say the city has no responsibility for these structures?
With authority comes the responsibility whether they like it or not.
It seems like this happens everytime someone goes to the governement asking for other people's money to do their bidding. If you want a government solution, you're going to get one.
^ complete nonsense. The designation of these districts has worked all over the country in helping to preserve our architectural heritage. Locally, the government needs to stand up for what its laws on the books say. This has nothing to do with big government vs small government.
The point of the article is that if the City is using federal funds to demolish homes in Springfield (or any historic district), there are certain protocols that they must follow.
A Section 106 review is required by an agency (in this case the City) spending federal funds if the project will impact historic properties listed (or eligible to be listed) in the National Register of Historic places. Part of this review entails submitting a file to the State Historic Preservation Office on buildings over 50 yrs old that will be impacted by this work.
The City's HUD 5 year Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan list the use of CDBG funds for demolition. CDBG funds are city wide, so the CDBG funds that were spent on demolition & clearance may or may not have been spent in Springfield. We can't be sure without addresses.
The City's NSP1 Funding (one time special HUD funds) plans both state the use of demoliton as well, of which about $1 MILLION dollars was set aside for demolition and clearance. NSP1 funds are targeted specifically in zip codes 32206, 32208, 32209, 32244, and 32254. The July 2012 NSP1 quarterly report on the City site (that is the most current) states a goal of demo of 125 properties for land to be "recycled into housing units." The money appears to be mostly all spent in that particular report, but they have not reported the actual number of properties or addresses under the performance measures. The "Draft" 2012-13 HUD Annual Plan [I can't find the final version on the City's website] states that Code Enforcement has demolished 200 structures using NSP1 funds.
The City's NSP3 funding states demolition as a project again, setting aside $400K for this activity, with a goal of demolition of 80 properties. The NSP3 money is specifically to be spent in Springfield and Eastside neighborhoods. As of the date of the most recent report on the city's site (July 2012), no funds had been spent yet.
So, I think Springfield deserves to know if any federal funds are being used to accomplish demolitions. From the City's own (albeit, not very updated) reports, it looks pretty probable. And if it is using federal money, was a Section 106 review conducted for each property demolished?
QuoteThe City's NSP1 Funding (one time special HUD funds) plans both state the use of demoliton as well, of which about $1 MILLION dollars was set aside for demolition and clearance.
QuoteThe City's NSP3 funding states demolition as a project again, setting aside $400K for this activity, with a goal of demolition of 80 properties.
Wow... Could this be a case of... "Use it or lose it"?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 24, 2013, 12:34:50 PM
QuoteThe City's NSP1 Funding (one time special HUD funds) plans both state the use of demoliton as well, of which about $1 MILLION dollars was set aside for demolition and clearance.
QuoteThe City's NSP3 funding states demolition as a project again, setting aside $400K for this activity, with a goal of demolition of 80 properties.
Wow... Could this be a case of... "Use it or lose it"?
POSSIBLY. NSP1 was supposed to be spent out by March of this year, and I think that the NSP3 funds have to be spent by Spring of next year. That may be why Springfield is seeing several demolitions happening after no City demolition activity for a year (can someone confirm this)?
Up until these two E. 2nd Street houses, the last demolition was on Ionia Street (1320 Ionia) on November 17, 2011. 2012 had zero demolitions. There were 5 demolitions in historic Springfield in 2011, the addresses are as follows:
1320 Ionia, demolished October 17
342 W. 10th Street, demolished July or August (Patterson Apts.)
1543 Market Street, demolished August 18
1612 Market Street, demolished January 25
445 E. 7th Street, demolished January (demo lien is January 7, so I supposed could have been a late Dec demo)
A campaign to add Springfield to the list of most endangered historic places (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/?utm_source=variable&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_campaign=11Most) may embarrass the city enough to at least make them consider revising their policies.
My guess is, by using the "emergency demolition" term, and an engineer in their pocket, they are able to circumvent preservation laws with public safety laws. A lot of shit is done in the name of public safety, that isn't necessarily in the publics best interest.
This will probably require a lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville. Probably a class action suit by owners of historic properties, that the current agressive nature puts their structures at risk, and decreases the value of their properties due to the loss of historic nature of designated neighborhoods. Im certain you have enough preservationists on board to create a class. Doesnt SOS have a lawyer on its board?
horrendous.
I had once said on another thread that Kim Scott acted as if she was running her own private "fiefdom" in the MCCD. As it turns out, in many ways she actually is!
Purchases and contracts for goods and services are generally handled through the city Procurement Department in order that they may ask for RFP's and competing prices for contracts, services and goods. However I have just found out and verified that the process for awarding the contracts for "demolition" and other services in the Municipal Code Compliance Department are handled by Kim Scott and she makes the choices about who gets the work.
Let's walk through the process. Kim Scott and her department identify a structure for demo. Rather than the procurement department being required to post the demo in order for other contractors to bid, Kim Scott in fact names the person or persons who she wants to give the job to. Her recommendation is handed in to the Procurement Office which then simply writes up an order per her recommendation and sends that on to the GGAC which is an awards commission. The awards commission then posts the name of those receiving the contract on the procurement site for just 48 hours. These awards are posted every Tuesday at 2:00PM and removed from the site the next Thursday at 2:00PM. This almost always results in the personal choice of Kim Scott or her department being awarded the jobs. So the reality is that Scott literally runs this process and other small contractors have no legitimate way to know about a structure coming up for demo or ask to bid on it until a short 48 hour period when the notice of who it was awarded to is posted. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is a process that can and very likely is being abused to the point that it keeps other contractors out of the loop while a select group are repeatedly handed city demo jobs without competitive and open bidding. The process is further convoluted by the fact that some demo's are rushed as emergencies and the process is even faster. Once Kim Scott's selected contractor makes it through the GGAC the deal is signed off by none other than Mayor Alvin Brown. I invite any and all readers to go to the City website departments list and see if you find a listing for "procurement" and then find awarded/posted contracts. Good luck!
It has been my experience in past investigations that this type of awards system is driven by kickbacks and other material gains. I found it in LaVilla and in the communities around Edward Waters College.
The funding for the demo's comes from either the city General Fund or Federal Hud Funds depending upon where they are located. I am currently awaiting the documentation and criterion for how funds in either case must be lawfully handled and dispersed.
Makes sense why the demo contractor was so vile to the neighborhood during the demolitions. As he continues to be at Kim Scott's feet kissing them, he continues to get big bucks for tearing down history.
Are there any lawyers out there that give a damn about this? Hell, I'm pretty sure just a public records request would show plenty of ethics violations.
Some records have already been requested along with other information. Everyone needs to be proactive with this including the gathering of records and documentation. It will be very important to stay on top of this issue as there is much happening here and beneath it all is clearly the need for revisiting and reworking procedures to protect property, citizens rights and open bidding on city jobs not to mention whether or not Federal HUD funds are being properly used for demo of property.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on June 24, 2013, 11:37:53 AM
I'm not claiming that it just affects springfield or riverside or any other historic distric let it be savannah or any other wonderful area. whats the federal statute that regulates a city authorized historic district
Please your not talking abut the nrhp issue are you? LOl don't think anyone will be hauled up to court on that
One wonders if you are imagining that when the Feds decide an issue that they dispatch Tommy Lee Jones with a special team of US Marshals?
Are you under the impression that the 'perps' in this case will be hunted like mad dogs?
Keel Hauled? Tossed into a prison so dark that light itself cannot escape? Then tried before a High Commission during which Tom Cruise breaks down into manly tears and then Susan Sarandon has a moment of serene illumination followed by some wrenching form of weeping?
Please. Spare us the drama.
Suing the City to force them to comply with the regulations attached to the money that they receive from the Federal Government involves no such histrionics.
But on the other hand, the Feds arent really known for just ignoring it when local officials decide that Uncle Sam can just go stuff himself either.
In the meantime, while you are exorcising this semantic demon, an entire historic district is in the process of being compromised ---- fatally---- as the components that make it historic are being demolished. But thanks for helping out anyways.
:(
Well sue away if you think if you have a case, but if your case has to do with fed funds used by the city/state is an issue, best of luck hope you have someone to do a pro bono case.
easier issue is to have the owners maintain there homes.
.
Quote from: civil42806 on June 24, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on June 24, 2013, 11:37:53 AM
I'm not claiming that it just affects springfield or riverside or any other historic distric let it be savannah or any other wonderful area. whats the federal statute that regulates a city authorized historic district
Please your not talking abut the nrhp issue are you? LOl don't think anyone will be hauled up to court on that
One wonders if you are imagining that when the Feds decide an issue that they dispatch Tommy Lee Jones with a special team of US Marshals?
Are you under the impression that the 'perps' in this case will be hunted like mad dogs?
Keel Hauled? Tossed into a prison so dark that light itself cannot escape? Then tried before a High Commission during which Tom Cruise breaks down into manly tears and then Susan Sarandon has a moment of serene illumination followed by some wrenching form of weeping?
Please. Spare us the drama.
Suing the City to force them to comply with the regulations attached to the money that they receive from the Federal Government involves no such histrionics.
But on the other hand, the Feds arent really known for just ignoring it when local officials decide that Uncle Sam can just go stuff himself either.
In the meantime, while you are exorcising this semantic demon, an entire historic district is in the process of being compromised ---- fatally---- as the components that make it historic are being demolished. But thanks for helping out anyways.
:(
Well sue away if you think if you have a case, but if your case has to do with fed funds used by the city/state is an issue, best of luck hope you have someone to do a pro bono case.
easier issue is to have the owners maintain there homes.
.
We get it, you are angry at those who don't maintain their homes regardless of what their personal situation may be. However the concern here goes beyond home maintenance and finds further focus in the procedures being used by the MCCD and Kim Scott to decided what properties need demo and when. Further is the question of mixed messages between city departments when it comes to what property owners are being told to do to secure structures only to find that inspite of following these directives properties are torn down anyway. There is the issue of fair bid process and what appears to be undo control of a single individual when it comes to who is awarded city contracts. Adding to that are the hows and whys of General Fund expenditures as well as HUD funds. None of this is impacted by what caused the structure to be on city radar in the first place.
No one has said anything specific about a lawsuit at this point and it may well turn out that when enough documentation, records and protocol is reviewed, city officials may well act on their own without a lawsuit forcing them to correct these concerns. That would be the best possible outcome. In the meantime the community is thankful for all the private individuals of PSOS who have put their own time and efforts behind saving structures and making them available at reasonable costs to potential homeowners.
Section 106 info: http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf (http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf)
As I understand it from a couple of people who have lots of experience with Section 106; how it is applied, what should be done, ETC, for other cities, a section 106 review should be done anytime a historic property is being affected by a program using federal funds. Many cities do it as SOP just to be sure. Jacksonville does it, well, it doesn't seem to be doing it. If Jacksonville gets caught not doing it when they should, what happens? Well, I suspect those federal funds could go elsewhere.
Quote from: strider on June 24, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
Section 106 info: http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf (http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf)
As I understand it from a couple of people who have lots of experience with Section 106; how it is applied, what should be done, ETC, for other cities, a section 106 review should be done anytime a historic property is being affected by a program using federal funds. Many cities do it as SOP just to be sure. Jacksonville does it, well, it doesn't seem to be doing it. If Jacksonville gets caught not doing it when they should, what happens? Well, I suspect those federal funds could go elsewhere.
Yes strider they may lose the funds and even find themselves on the hook for past funds depending on what the criterion was when they received the HUD funds to begin with. It is interesting to note that this is not the first time the City of Jacksonville has been looked at regarding the use of Federal Funds, including those from HUD.
"We get it, you are angry at those who don't maintain their homes regardless of what their personal situation may be. However the concern here goes beyond home maintenance and finds further focus in the procedures being used by the MCCD and Kim Scott to decided what properties need demo and when."
LOL not angry about this at all. Don't live in the area so doesn't affect me. Just the idea of maintenance makes more sense than suing someone and the continuous posting of the crises from one house to another. No sense to wait until a house is on the demolition list to all of a sudden start to maintain it.
Quote from: civil42806 on June 24, 2013, 08:13:45 PM
"We get it, you are angry at those who don't maintain their homes regardless of what their personal situation may be. However the concern here goes beyond home maintenance and finds further focus in the procedures being used by the MCCD and Kim Scott to decided what properties need demo and when."
LOL not angry about this at all. Don't live in the area so doesn't affect me. Just the idea of maintenance makes more sense than suing someone and the continuous posting of the crises from one house to another. No sense to wait until a house is on the demolition list to all of a sudden start to maintain it.
Fair enough!
In these older historic areas there are many reasons why homes of great age are not maintained, not the least of them being that some home owners are elderly and physically unable to keep them up and others are low income. Either situation often makes the continued maintenance of an older home very difficult both physically and financially. Others cannot pay the taxes and lose their homes for that reason. This is not at all unusual in very old neighborhoods. Considering the quality of old construction, materials used and the overall beauty of many of these old homes not to mention the historic value of the community, even in cases of accidental or willful neglect it is still a great idea to save what is left of a lovely old community and breath new life into old structures. :)
Civil we feel attacked hence the crisis mode.
All historic districts do is remove rights and privileges of homeowners and transfer them to government. Never mind that the government did not build these houses nor maintain them. Individual homeowners did that. They are the owners of those houses. Nonetheless, people in a neighborhood suddenly decide that somehow THEY, via government, should decide what YOU do to YOUR house. So if you find yourself in a potential historic district and you don't absolutely love your house the way it is, you had better make your alterations quickly because government will soon be looking over your shoulder.
Historic neighborhoods are not for everyone. They have special rules --
Quote from: Redbaron616 on June 24, 2013, 08:42:49 PM
All historic districts do is remove rights and privileges of homeowners and transfer them to government. Never mind that the government did not build these houses nor maintain them. Individual homeowners did that. They are the owners of those houses. Nonetheless, people in a neighborhood suddenly decide that somehow THEY, via government, should decide what YOU do to YOUR house. So if you find yourself in a potential historic district and you don't absolutely love your house the way it is, you had better make your alterations quickly because government will soon be looking over your shoulder.
oh please your a sock puppet for who?
It doesn't give rights to government, it gives the citizens a path for protection of valuable historical artifacts. Shy of vigilantism, the only appropriate recourse is using the only proper policing authority, the government. Without these protections, history would be lost.
Now if you want to talk about HOA?! That shit is whack.
That house was neglected and an eyesore. In part, I passed on buying the beautiful and amazing home next door because of that unsightly, trash heap, framework of a shack that they so properly tore down. When people buy a house like that with intent to restore it, they should be commended. In this case, the opposite occurred. That house had suffered such benign neglect since purchased that it went from being of some value to having only the lot value less the cost of tearing it down and moving the trash. A reasonable person would realize that it was a lost cause, a leg with gangrene, and needed to be removed as an eyesore and detriment to the community. I am very glad to see some progress being made in respect to these kinds of properties in Springfield and also hope that soon the City will put the extraordinary amount of empty lots and houses on their books for sale so that others can actually do something with them to reconstitute the neighborhood. It is wrong for the City to not put those on the market.
Next door on all sides are empty lots unless you are talking about 129 east 2nd.
Many houses which are now beautifully restored (including the amazing house you were interested in) were also ugly ducklings waiting their turn
In 1985 there was one empty lot on east 2nd from Main St to Clark. One.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/541ba8be-3f41-4dc6-a0d0-d95f02961bef.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/541ba8be-3f41-4dc6-a0d0-d95f02961bef.jpg.html)
read how Councilman Lumb is rescuing us once again:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18749.msg333740/topicseen.html#new
Those vacant lots will be vacant a LONG time, if the experience of most cities, including Jax, is a guide. LaVilla, Brooklyn and the Northbank are just the LOCAL examples of that. Generally it is far cheaper to fix up a structurally sound but distressed property, than build from the ground up brand new.
Having buildings that can be restored allows more organic growth to naturally occur, because more people have the budget to do a rehab than build from the ground up. That's one reason why there is such a vast desert of vacant land in the urban core of Jax.
Charleston and Savannah both had many distressed properties that are grand dames today. They only survived because they were protected and treasured by their communities.
As far as 'standing to sue' would the Jax Historical Society have standing? The Historic Charleston Foundation is frequently involved in litigation of that nature.
I received this minutes ago:
Gloria:
Immediately below is my e-mail to the administration. Please feel free to share it with your compatriots in SOS and elsewhere.
Robin Lumb
------------------------
Mr. Ashanta-Barker & Ms. Scott:
Can you provide me with a list of those properties that have been scheduled for demolition, or that might be scheduled for demolition, inside either of the city’s two Historic Districts?
As for those buildings that are slated for demolition, I respectfully ask that you postpone such action until we can come to an agreement on how the demolition process should be handled going forward.
Given the limited and shrinking stock of architecturally significant structures in our city I believe we should use every available tool at our disposal to avoid demolition. For example, it’s my understanding that Municipal Code Compliance has the authority and latitude to mitigate the adverse conditions affecting a historic structure, i.e., providing structural support for a sagging porch instead of tearing down an entire building, but that such options are almost never pursued.
An example of this short-sighted policy of preferring demolition over stabilization occurred when a contributing structure at 129 East 2nd Street was torn down several weeks ago. In that particular case, the demolition occurred the day following a meeting of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission and despite the fact that MCC staff who attended the meeting were aware that the JHPC had voted to recommend stabilization rather than demolition.
I’m planning to introduce legislation to address the negative effects that our current system of rolling fines has on historic preservation. The problem with the present system is that the accumulated fines are so large (227 properties in Springfield have a combined $49 million in fines!) that there is little or no financial incentive to bring a property into compliance. Not only are property owners unable to obtain the refinancing necessary to make repairs, even if financing were available the accumulated fines - $200K+ on average - mean that most property owners will remain under water even after renovations have been completed.
Without going into great detail, my legislation would create a process for structured workouts; one that would waive all or most of the accumulated fines for those owners who present an acceptable plan for bringing their properties into compliance and who are willing to commit to a specific timetable. However, until such time as I can bring the legislation forward, I believe that we should develop protocols that clearly spell out how historic properties are to be treated and the steps the city should take to avoid demolition.
The sin qua non of historic preservation is to stop tearing down the city’s dwindling stock of contributing structures. Given this predicate understanding demolition should be the last resort.
Sincerely,
Robin Lumb
Jacksonville City Council
Group 5 At Large
Quote from: vicupstate on June 25, 2013, 05:21:52 AM
As far as 'standing to sue' would the Jax Historical Society have standing? The Historic Charleston Foundation is frequently involved in litigation of that nature.
I was wondering that this morning too. Why doesn't the Historical Society get involved? In other cities they are greatly involved in issues like this...?
Thank God. Where is our Councilman on these issues?
Lumb should also demand to know where the funds came from for those two recent Springfield demolitions...
Mr Lumb's letter is great and I hope it helps moving forward. We still have a huge issue in that Ms Scott has already stated she does not have to listen to city council; she does not work for them. I fear another house will go before this ends unless the Mayors office takes this seriously and acts today.
None of this means we should stop looking into the NSP funding issues and the possible ethics violations.
Quote from: sheclown on June 25, 2013, 08:53:14 AM
I received this minutes ago:
Gloria:
227 properties in Springfield have a combined $49 million in fines!
Wow. Anyone know what the assessed value of those 227 homes are?
Kim Pryor kicked booty tonight at the council meeting. i hope anyone interested in this topic had the opportunity to watch her. She demanded Kim Scott be "stripped of her duties" and the council was not opposed to this one bit. Dr. Gaffney, Robin Lumb, Lori Boyer strongly supportive. Warren Jones doesn't like the city maintaining private property (at which point, Robin Lumb schooled him about historic districts and then Kim emphatically stated it was the DUTY of the city to stabilize them.
She told them "MCCD is committing a crime."
(And I didn't hear anyone defend them.)
Bill Bishop wants a meeting and all of them agreed to "deal with this."
Quote from: sheclown on June 25, 2013, 08:03:36 PM
Kim Pryor kicked booty tonight at the council meeting. i hope anyone interested in this topic had the opportunity to watch her. She demanded Kim Scott be "stripped of her duties" and the council was not opposed to this one bit. Dr. Gaffney, Robin Lumb, Lori Boyer strongly supportive. Warren Jones doesn't like the city maintaining private property (at which point, Robin Lumb schooled him about historic districts and then Kim emphatically stated it was the DUTY of the city to stabilize them.
She told them "MCCD is committing a crime."
(And I didn't hear anyone defend them.)
Wow, I missed that. I can only watch Council meetings for so long these days before I experience an overload of the regulars rantings. lol I am glad to hear that some of the members of council are also concerned about the functioning of MCCD. I wonder if they are aware of how the demo jobs are awarded? I bet that will surprise and worry many of them as well it should. It is time Kim Scott is shown the door and made to realize that she is still just an employee of the taxpayers. We need a person in that office who does not suffer from any type of self aggrandizing behavior. No more "Off with the Heads" type of judgments made when it comes to historic structures.
It was great to hear Kim Pryor last night as she laid things out in such a way that there could be no misunderstanding of the way Code has interpreted the ordinances to do things their way and that it's an abuse of power. She was articulate and passionate. Don Quixote himself couldn't have done it better. And I believe that enough Council members got on board that this won't just fade away. This will go down as a turning point in saving our historic homes. Thanks, Kim. And thanks, as well, to Gloria and Nicole and countless others who have also fought the good fight.
Thank you Springfield Chicken for your kind words. I am hopeful that my personal passion for historic preservation will benefit all of Jacksonville's historic districts, as well as other historic homes that lie in areas that are not yet protected. It is truly all about SAVING THE HOUSES! Please don't think I do this all alone - I am proud to say that I am part of PSOS.
Here's the link to the 06/25/13 Council meeting video. The discussion on historic demolition starts at 2:42:15.
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%206-25-13.wmv
And in case the video itself won't open, here's the link to the webpage where all the 2013 council meetings are archived: http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2013-council-video-archive.aspx
thank you for posting this.
I was so proud of our city council for responding so earnestly.
This is why I love historic homes.
Today, in a great house we are working on, the homeowner asked "can we look in the holes that the plumbers made and see if we can find the pocket door?"
"Of course!!!"
The plumbers, instructed by us, cut minimal holes in the walls to enable them to do their plumbing work. The original plaster is on the walls (complete with horse-hair aggregate) and will remain as much as possible. The wood lathe is there as well.
When we peeked inside, we saw the six foot paneled door -- some of which may not have even been painted -- tucked nicely in there just waiting for discovery.
We jumped around, climbed the ladder, peeked for ourselves.
This is why you work on a scary house and you save them all.
For the moments you find pocket doors behind the walls.
QUESTION: Why do you keep a bulldozer on a cleared Springfield lot for a week?
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 09:11:31 PM
QUESTION: Why do you keep a bulldozer on a cleared Springfield lot for a week?
so everyone can see how big it is, and respect the size of your tool, obviously.
8) ;D 8) Stephen that was funny!
But on a serious note, me thinks it is because you plan to USE said bulldozer in the general vicinity AGAIN.
The mentality of Code Enforcement in COJ is the problem here. Reminds me of a sad session before the Code Compliance Board Magistrate a couple of years ago. An elderly widow [60ish] was cited for a failing single car garage roof. She had been victimized at least twice by repairers who took her money and ran. The City attitude [via Code Enforcement] was she either find a way to repair the roof or the City would hire a contractor to tear down her garage [and of course put a lien on her property to repay the cost]. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial to use those demolition funds to repair the problem and keep that property on the tax rolls? The City could still have placed a lien for the repairs. That is the real problem here. The City doesn't care what is better for the long term health of Jacksonville.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on June 27, 2013, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 09:11:31 PM
QUESTION: Why do you keep a bulldozer on a cleared Springfield lot for a week?
so everyone can see how big it is, and respect the size of your tool, obviously.
8) ;D 8) Stephen that was funny!
But on a serious note, me thinks it is because you plan to USE said bulldozer in the general vicinity AGAIN.
i saw that big ugly thing there, and i was thinking what a shame it'd be if something happened to it...
edit: fixed typo.
Quote from: AngryCitizen on June 28, 2013, 09:01:06 AM
The mentality of Code Enforcement in COJ is the problem here. Reminds me of a sad session before the Code Compliance Board Magistrate a couple of years ago. An elderly widow [60ish] was cited for a failing single car garage roof. She had been victimized at least twice by repairers who took her money and ran. The City attitude [via Code Enforcement] was she either find a way to repair the roof or the City would hire a contractor to tear down her garage [and of course put a lien on her property to repay the cost]. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial to use those demolition funds to repair the problem and keep that property on the tax rolls? The City could still have placed a lien for the repairs. That is the real problem here. The City doesn't care what is better for the long term health of Jacksonville.
You said it! This is a great example..
Wow just wow
I can't believe that someone shares my EXACT feeling about pocket doors!! lol
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 06:43:37 PM
This is why I love historic homes.
Today, in a great house we are working on, the homeowner asked "can we look in the holes that the plumbers made and see if we can find the pocket door?"
"Of course!!!"
The plumbers, instructed by us, cut minimal holes in the walls to enable them to do their plumbing work. The original plaster is on the walls (complete with horse-hair aggregate) and will remain as much as possible. The wood lathe is there as well.
When we peeked inside, we saw the six foot paneled door -- some of which may not have even been painted -- tucked nicely in there just waiting for discovery.
We jumped around, climbed the ladder, peeked for ourselves.
This is why you work on a scary house and you save them all.
For the moments you find pocket doors behind the walls.
Carolyn, this photo's for you!!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/pocketdoors.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/pocketdoors.jpg.html)
Now, back on track and fully functional!
Six panel, six feet, monster pocket door.
;D BEAUTIFUL!!!!!! I love a good pocket door!
Quote from: sheclown on June 28, 2013, 05:56:29 PM
Carolyn, this photo's for you!!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/pocketdoors.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/pocketdoors.jpg.html)
Now, back on track and fully functional!
Six panel, six feet, monster pocket door.
Wow. Just wow. That's one thing I miss about our last house. The enormous, amazing pocket doors in the living room. That said, I don't miss the stairs. There are things to be said for bungalows when you are, shall we say, " of a certain age?" But I love pocket doors.
http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1621
back in October of 2011, we were told NSP3 sources were available to demolish the so-called formal track homes.
PSOS did a public records request for this property along with 129 East 2nd Street. Although it took awhile, we did get the records this week. We were hoping to get some info on what MetroNorth was planning to do with the property. Those records are there.
Additionally, there is this lovely nugget.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/790d6c87-aea6-4dda-bdc2-cf5200b152ff.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/790d6c87-aea6-4dda-bdc2-cf5200b152ff.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/9347fb7b-48ab-46aa-94bd-3f3adbafe5d2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/9347fb7b-48ab-46aa-94bd-3f3adbafe5d2.jpg.html)
FWIW, I was that "attendee".
Additonally, for what it is worth, the city spent in excess of $10k to demolish. Removing that front gable over the porch, or bracing it, would have been significantly less than $10k.
However, the flip disregard for historic properties shown by Crescimbeni, is quite alarming as well.
What I found equally funny is threads from Metrojacksonville in the city's files.
The appraised value on 253 East 2nd Street as it sits was $42k. The finished rehab appraisal came in at $194,000
This appraisal was done early this year for Metro North.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/381d9051-41fd-4453-95a6-fde1edde3c5f.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/381d9051-41fd-4453-95a6-fde1edde3c5f.jpg.html)
Springfield...you are on your own.
Just for the record, no one had asked MCC or the city to rehabilitate or restore one of the houses. They have been asked to brace and mothball, which, by the way, is allowed for by ordinance. In fact, the ordinances require them to use the least intrusive means possible when dealing with these historic structures, yet they consistently use the most destructive means possible. Mothballing would be less than demolition 95% of the time. Bracing 129 East 2nd street would have potentially saved the city $ 200,000.00. Waiting just one month until closing by the city would have seen NSP funds used to restore 253 East 2nd street instead of the city spending $14,000.00 to demolish it and putting the city once again on the hook for a potential $ 200.000.00 lawsuit. Though in an e-mail, Ms Scott does complain that it might have been a whole 3 months before the City would have begun that rehab.
Perhaps it is Ms Scott and Mr Crescimbini should use those Lenscrafters coupons themselves so they can read the ordinances and then get themselves some hearing aids so that can hear what is actually being said instead of just making stuff up as they go.
YOU MAY SAY I'M DREAMER...I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 05:48:49 PM
Quote from: sheclown on August 18, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/381d9051-41fd-4453-95a6-fde1edde3c5f.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/381d9051-41fd-4453-95a6-fde1edde3c5f.jpg.html)
gulliford is also an ass. And he isnt term limited.
The city program Ms Kimberly Scott was referring to in her e-mail was the 1998 Springfield Auction that kicked off an intensive push to kick start the revitalization of Historic Springfield. I believe a total of 11 houses were sold at the auction itself and deals closed on another 2 afterwards. The auction prices were actually high for Springfield at the time (the area had been redlined) and so the city always knew it was going to provide that gap funding between real values and what it actually cost to rehab the houses. Only one house went "through the roof" cost wise when it was found after the work begun that major structural and windows issues were present. For the most part, the houses were about at what was expected.
In the for what it's worth department, the buyers of that house that went so far over are still living in it and enjoying it. The program, and the Federal Funds spent did exactly what they were intended to do.
That said, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Ms Scott brought it up as a smoke screen to help justify her continued abuse of the power given to her. And, of course, her need to spend that $ 400,000.00 of NSP funding she has available to her.
Also, as no one from RAP spent seven or eight years speaking FOR demolitions like SPAR Council did, as I suspect no one from RAP or the other historic areas has their leadership making multiple phone calls supporting demolitions like Ms Scott has eluded to about Springfield, Ms Scott is exactly right, the issues in Springfield are indeed very different that the other Historic Areas.
Good Golly, Miss Molly! The City is STILL whining about the ONE house that went over budget FIFTEEN years ago in the effort to kick off the restoration of Springfield? How much in property taxes have restored Springfield homes brought the city in property taxes, huh? Way more than $200,000, I promise you.
And Kimberly Scott is lying and making stuff up? Big surprise. As stated above, we do not expect MCCD to rehab houses. We expect them, as required by city ordinance to stabilize them, in the least intrusive way possible, instead of demolish them. In my opinion, she jut lied in writing to our City Council. I'm open to being wrong, though. Kimberly Scott, just post the email where you are asked to rehab even one house in Springfield.
And while we are talking about the budget for buildings...hmm...let's see now. Just HOW much OVER BUDGET did the new Taj Mahal oops Courthouse go?
I have to modify what I said previously.
Springfield has had CM Lumb -- thank you, sir, for standing by us and sticking up for us on historic preservation.
clearly kim scott serves great koolaid.
our council members need to be a little more hands on about what's going on.
it's easier to ignore springfield b/c in general the income level there is lower than in riverside or avondale, the homes are older, and there have been conflicting (and self serving) interests within the neighborhood. it makes it hard for the city to care and easy for them to swallow whatever line scott feeds them.
open your eyes, city council!!!
QuoteHow much in property taxes have restored Springfield homes brought the city in property taxes, huh?
^Love that! Heck if the city put 1% of the property taxes it has collected since all of us began renovating in Springfield and bringing the property values up they would have more than enough to mothball the empty homes! Then they wouldn't have to dip into FEDERAL money to demo homes in a National Historic District, which is illegal and should really be looked into
It's a strange thing. This neighborhood is not asking the city to spend any additional money here. It is only asking the city NOT to demolish the houses. If it must stabilize for public safety, then stabilize and mothball as required by ordinance (which is ultimately cheaper than demolition).
And not to use the "public safety" line -- really...the city was going to invest federal dollars to beautifully restore 253 East 2nd. What sort of "public safety" emergency was that?
So many groups, so many people have their hands out to the city. We have our hands UP. Stop. Period. Go away.
Tragically, this neighborhood was targeted for NSP funds. $400k for demolition along with other areas in 32206. This is doing EXACTLY what HUD does not want to happen. Using the federal dollars, regardless of the outcome, just to spend them.
This will bite Jacksonville in the ass. And it ain't just the dreamer in me saying that.
Dear Jacksonville, a house that is stable, or restored will be worth more, and bring in more property taxes, than a vacant lot. neighbor hoods that have home, and not vacant lots will with worth more than those with a few houses here and there.
The minimal cost to properly do your job, would save the city a ton of money.
You're a licensed CBC aren't you Gloria?
Springfield continues to be an unnecessary victim of Code Enforcement, all they do is push forward a line of crap and expect people to be okay with it. Kimberly Scott goes out of her way to bully Springfield and unfortunately has been given the power to do what she deems necessary to "keep the public safe."
I once thought (just prior to buying in 2007) that NO WAY could a historic home be demolished. NO WAY. Well, we all know how that thought panned out. Virtually the opposite.
No one EVER asked code to rehab homes. EVER. Simply take the least intrusive means possible, save the tax payers some dollars, protect the historic homes of our hood, and work to build a tax base. A vacant lot marred with liens and fines does not do that.
yes Chris.
Quote from: iloveionia on August 19, 2013, 08:49:27 PM
Springfield continues to be an unnecessary victim of Code Enforcement, all they do is push forward a line of crap and expect people to be okay with it. Kimberly Scott goes out of her way to bully Springfield and unfortunately has been given the power to do what she deems necessary to "keep the public safe."
I once thought (just prior to buying in 2007) that NO WAY could a historic home be demolished. NO WAY. Well, we all know how that thought panned out. Virtually the opposite.
No one EVER asked code to rehab homes. EVER. Simply take the least intrusive means possible, save the tax payers some dollars, protect the historic homes of our hood, and work to build a tax base. A vacant lot marred with liens and fines does not do that.
And furthermore, there is a line between policy and ordinance that is too often crossed. Ordinance has gone through the public hearing process and been voted on by elected officials. Policy does not.
It is by city ordinance that these homes be protected. It is by policy that these homes are demolished.
Quote from: sheclown on August 20, 2013, 06:54:01 AM
yes Chris.
So you, a licensed CBC who inspected the house, gives an estimate of what's needed to correct what code is concerned over, and rather than thanking you for your time (which you donated) some random council person is emailing that you need LensCrafters based on some bad quality exterior photos code showed? Really? Why bother even having a meeting, it seems the conclusion was predetermined.
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: sheclown on August 18, 2013, 05:04:32 PM
PSOS did a public records request for this property along with 129 East 2nd Street. Although it took awhile, we did get the records this week. We were hoping to get some info on what MetroNorth was planning to do with the property. Those records are there.
Additionally, there is this lovely nugget.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/lenscrafters0001.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/lenscrafters0001.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/lenscrafters0002.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/lenscrafters0002.jpg.html)
FWIW, I was that "attendee".
Additonally, for what it is worth, the city spent in excess of $10k to demolish. Removing that front gable over the porch, or bracing it, would have been significantly less than $10k.
However, the flip disregard for historic properties shown by Crescimbeni, is quite alarming as well.
Hes an ass more than half the time. He has funny comments though. Assy but funny. ;)
Just to set the record straight, the $ 1,000.00 quoted to "brace the structure" was not for the entire structure but an amount to brace only the remains of the front porch gable. Ms. Scott is either badly mistaken or being purposely misleading in her e-mail to a councilman. In the engineering report ordered by Ms Scott and paid for by us tax payers, the only thing that was considered an emergency and imminent threat by the professional engineering firm was the front porch gable, not the main house. Bracing it at $ 1,000.00 seems a bit more sensible that paying the about $11,000.00 for the demolition and the potential lawsuit the city is now facing.
The city is closing libraries, complaining about budget shortfalls and yet the Mayors office is allowing a paid employee make decisions that cost the city many times what they should and puts the city on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands in legal liabilities. Remember that while the funding for the actually demolition may have been from NSP funding, the resulting liabilities, put at above $200,000.00 each based on previous financial records from similar lawsuits, would be directly from us tax payers not any kind of federal funding.
And to think that Ms Scott and others are trying to say we are the ones out of touch with reality.
@ChrisWufGator: A council member and Code Enforcement Director who neither one are GC's and do NOT have the qualifications to make assessments as to cost and feasibility to correct this home's issues. They are the ones who need lenses, and GC licenses. They are both speaking beyond their paygrade
There should certainly be some sort of burden of proof required, for each and every action that is made. Once every avenue has been evaluated, then proceed. Willy nilly 'it's an emergency' is not the way to do it. I'd love to give Ms. Scott a performance review. Seems like she is the Governor's evil twin....
Quote from: sheclown on August 20, 2013, 06:58:30 AM
It is by city ordinance that these homes be protected. It is by policy that these homes are demolished.
And this policy is created by Kim Scott, Chief of Code Enforcement. She, and only she, gets to make crucial decisions about our neighborhood and as Stider continually states, our tax dollars.
Her latest policy is to revisit condemned and at risk homes in Springfield now every three months. Previously it was every six months. Why the ants in the pants? What does she have against Springfield? Who is whispering in her ear? Something else awry? Nothing ever seems to line up.
As stated earlier. Leave us alone.
Is there a way to remove Ms. Scott from her position?
-Josh
PS- Hello and back from the hiatus status.
Yes, is she appointed?
Ms Scott serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, I believe. So there should be one of those letters of resignation already in a file.
Look what I found...
$88K salary to destroy historical houses in Springfield? Like she has nothing else to do...
http://news.jacksonville.com/govtsalaries/index.php?id=326644 (http://news.jacksonville.com/govtsalaries/index.php?id=326644)
-Josh
PSOS was successful in gaining the public records it requested, they show that NSP3 funds were indeed used to demolish 253 East 2nd Street along with 129 East 2nd Street. As far as we can tell, none of the required Section 106 reviews were done.
This is a gross misuse of federal funds.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/3de5f181-54e4-46d4-96a5-a748374c7aa8.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/3de5f181-54e4-46d4-96a5-a748374c7aa8.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/3712ce4b-8c39-4ad8-9fb0-4a65d9a023d2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/3712ce4b-8c39-4ad8-9fb0-4a65d9a023d2.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/80687544-4f55-493a-8cb4-736e48c8524b.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/80687544-4f55-493a-8cb4-736e48c8524b.jpg.html)
Gross misuse of $17,000.00 on a single home. Now there another question to be asked which is how much dadgum money are the two family owned businesses (same family) making on a yearly basis that is given directly to them by Kim Scott at her whim? This is not a good way to decide who get's what contract wise and is a process ripe for abuse. Seems there is a bunch of money to be made in the tear down business. More questions need to be asked about Kim Scott's department and who she is giving all of these contracts to.
This documentation is for 253. We also have it for 129 East 2nd Street. Hold on.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1ab8d43a-f97c-4061-9134-bad2b8044801.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1ab8d43a-f97c-4061-9134-bad2b8044801.jpg.html)
Quote from: stephendare on September 03, 2013, 06:41:22 PM
In looking at this issue, Gloria, Kim Scott was warned by you guys several years ago that this type of funding required this type of review. And yet she decided to break federal policy all on her own anyways.
This seems like the smoking gun.
What now? Is it a federal action or does the mayor fire her?
The Mayor won't fire her cause he is "cozy" with her and the system that allows this type of action. She has buds on the council as well. Look to the mayors recent words which he contradicts himself in a single sentence. Gloria put it somewhere on this thread I believe.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/d260e8ef-226e-45f6-97cd-3e7bde3cc571.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/d260e8ef-226e-45f6-97cd-3e7bde3cc571.jpg.html)
Quote from: sheclown on September 03, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1ab8d43a-f97c-4061-9134-bad2b8044801.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1ab8d43a-f97c-4061-9134-bad2b8044801.jpg.html)
That's nearly $28,000.00 to tear down two homes as opposed to mothballing them. Cha Ching. Follow the money and expose the agenda.
I would hope the federal government would freeze its money until it performs an audit on how the city of Jacksonville is using federal funds to demolish a historic district --
So how can we get this stopped, and would love to see some heads roll too
Remember there is 400k out there in federal funds earmarked for demolition -- plenty left -- this is a very big deal. This federal money can only be used in a few zip codes of which Springfield is one.
We also believe, but lack documentation at this point, that NSP3 funds were used to demolish the Hurston Flower Shop earlier this year.
Frozen funding is exactly what will happen if this issue is pursued and not resolved. There are already complaints with the fed's, many in fact over the years that question how Jacksonville handles federal funds. In fact about three years ago one individual (not myself) went to the Capitol and met with officials about this issue and was told what would happen if funds were misspent. This situation can be kicked up another notch by directly contacting the Federal Government and making a complaint. I think the Mayor and council need to sit up and take notice before that happens. If federal funds are even temporarily stopped on their way to Jacksonville they will be very difficult to get restarted. Clearly, some think this is a joke and that attitude is clear in the snarky remark Crescimbeni made to Kim Scott regarding a previous inquirie, something to do about free tickets.
Gloria is right, this is a very big deal and we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in the balance.
Quote from: stephendare on September 03, 2013, 06:57:41 PM
I suppose Gullifords 'dreamers' comment will shortly be referring to the nightmare that he was so smug about allowing.
They could become a nightmare right quick Stephen. These documents, along with Federal guidelines and a single call to the FBI could set an investigation into motion. One phone call is all it will take to get the ball rolling.
Stephen, I think they are on this thread as copies of the original documents posted by Gloria. Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?
FYI, the majority of demo contracts go to companies owned by the Lloyd's. Michael Lloyd's Land Clearing and P & G Land Clearing (Grady Lloyd). While separate companies, both owners (related) were present at least at the 129 East 2nd St demolition. I think it worked out to be something like 44 of 50 odd demolitions. The two listed here were called "emergency" by Ms Scott meaning no competitive bidding what so ever even possible. P& G got both contracts. Coincidence?
It is also my understanding that if Jacksonville is found to have blatantly ignored the federal mandates in regards to the funding, ALL federal funding can be withheld, not just the funding immediately at issue. In other words, not just the millions of NSP, but the millions more from other programs. Yeah, let's close libraries but allow MS Scott to continue to put all federal funding at risk. Makes perfect sense to me.
Quote from: stephendare on September 03, 2013, 07:18:27 PM
Quote from: strider on September 03, 2013, 07:14:17 PM
FYI, the majority of demo contracts go to companies owned by the Lloyd's. Michael Lloyd's Land Clearing and P & G Land Clearing (Grady Lloyd). While separate companies, both owners (related) were present at least at the 129 East 2nd St demolition. I think it worked out to be something like 44 of 50 odd demolitions. The two listed here were called "emergency" by Ms Scott meaning no competitive bidding what so ever even possible. P& G got both contracts. Coincidence?
It is also my understanding that if Jacksonville is found to have blatantly ignored the federal mandates in regards to the funding, ALL federal funding can be withheld, not just the funding immediately at issue. In other words, not just the millions of NSP, but the millions more from other programs. Yeah, let's close libraries but allow MS Scott to continue to put all federal funding at risk. Makes perfect sense to me.
interestingly P & G was incorporated in 2010. Intellius has some interesting background information.
What could possibly go wrong with improper use of federal funds in a circumstance where only one person has ultimate say so and cannot be countermanded when all of the lucrative contracts are going to a couple of cousins under a no bid process?
Why nothing of course Stephen, nothing...just ask Kim Scott.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 07:03:59 PM
Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's been denial of it...it has just taken some time to get the records that directly show where the funding came from for demo of these 2 properties.
from:
Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
1
QuoteNEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM
SECTION 106 TOOLKIT:
HOW TO COMPLY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS
The materials included in this t
oolkit are designed to help Responsible Entities 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 Stabil
ization Program.
QuoteD. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with
the demolition of contributing buildings
within an historic district or
properties listed on or eligible fo
r listing on the National Register until
the procedures set forth in
Stipulation D. are completed.
Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
12
1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation
to the SHPO for each historic property
proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recen
t structural analysis,
a summary of alternatives consid
ered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation
plan, and the views of the public.
2. If the SHPO determines t hat the proposed
demolition is the most feasible alternative,
the SHPO shall develop a Standard
Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with
Stipulation VI.
3. If the SHPO determines that the St
andard Mitigation Meas
ures do not apply,
RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council
and initiate the consultatio
n process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)
It is our belief through researching for almost a year, that NONE of these procedures were followed.
Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.
Quote from: m74reeves on September 03, 2013, 07:29:35 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 07:03:59 PM
Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's been denial of it...it has just taken some time to get the records that directly show where the funding came from for demo of these 2 properties.
There has been a denial of it for years. Although, I don't think that denial was ever in writing.
Was it made during an open council meeting or a meeting where minutes were taken? There must be something somewhere.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 03, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.
We came very close to having this happen not so long ago Ennis. I am dead serious about that and it was only the fact that all other Federal funds would be held as well that kept this from going forward back then because it would have impacted some of the funds needed for valid projects underway.
I wouldn't give my grandson fists full of money and then set him loose in the mall expecting him to make wise choices without supervision.
Seems like that is happening here.
If the city council, the mayor's office, the historic preservation commission can't figure out a way to have this money in the city's coffers without checking on how it is being spent (out of fear or intimidation), it is best to turn it away.
Zero checks and balances. Zero accountability.
Zero responsibility.
Quote from: sheclown on September 03, 2013, 07:43:23 PM
I wouldn't give my grandson fists full of money and then set him loose in the mall expecting him to make wise choices without supervision.
Seems like that is happening here.
If the city council, the mayor's office, the historic preservation commission can't figure out a way to have this money in the city's coffers without checking on how it is being spent (out of fear or intimidation), it is best to turn it away.
Zero checks and balances. Zero accountability.
Zero responsibility.
Amazing and totally not what should be happening in this city with tax dollars.
cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds from a 2008 audit
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million
EDITED: they were punished by taking smaller HOME allocations in subsequent years...sadly this punishes some of the good not for profits out there by not having this funding available. again, proper oversight would mean some positive outcomes for the various federal funding the City receives.
Quote from: m74reeves on September 03, 2013, 07:50:45 PM
cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million
QuoteHousing audit leaves Jacksonville on the hook for $2.7 million
City must pay U.S. back for housing program mismanagement.
Posted: June 14, 2010 - 7:04pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site
Audit findings
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhood Department has to pay back the federal government $2.7 million because of mismanagement of a housing program. An audit conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of the City's Home Investment Partnership Program, among other things, found that:
- The city approved a $900,000 loan for a company to purchase an affordable housing complex, despite the fact that company already owned the complex for more than two years.
- Three loans given for the purpose of buying or renovating affordable housing complexes were used on properties that ended in foreclosure.
- Because of the foreclosures, the three properties did not meet key requirements of the program.
- A $500,000 loan was given for the purchase of an affordable housing complex, but documentation verifying that purchase was lacking.
By Matt Dixon
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhoods Department is paying $2.7 million back to the federal government because a housing program was mismanaged, according to documents reviewed by The Times-Union.
A little known 2008 audit said that the Home Investment Partnerships Program, administered by Housing and Neighborhoods, provided money for the purchase and renovation of two affordable housing complexes - Ashley Tower Apartments and Magnolia Point Apartments. Those complexes ended up in foreclosure and did not complete key requirements of the program.
The Home program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and provides money to local governments or nonprofits with the aim of buying or rehabilitating affordable housing. The city is repaying HUD by taking lesser annual Home allocations over a three-year period.
Read the 2008 report here
The audit found that because the two complexes entered foreclosure, they did not provide affordable housing for the length of time required by the program. As a result, the audit said, the city should have stepped in and purchased the properties to allow them to continue providing affordable housing.
City housing officials disagreed.
Wight Greger, director of the city's Housing and Neighborhoods Department, told HUD that the city was not in a financial position to buy and operate the housing complexes.
She said that HUD's own rules do not require a city to purchase a foreclosed property, which sold at a foreclosure sale for $700,000, but say that it "may use purchase options."
Beyond criticizing the city for not stepping in, most of the audit's specific findings of "noncompliance" were related to $2.2 million in loans given to two owners of Ashley Tower.
In 1993, the city gave a $1.4 million Home loan to Sandy Seligman to purchase and renovate Ashley Towers, which ended up in foreclosure. Six years later, the city approved another $900,000 Home loan to Tower Place Apartments, the new owner of Ashley Towers.
The audit notes several issues with this second loan. Among them:
- The loan was approved for the purchase of the complex despite Tower Place apartments having already owned the property for more than two years.
- Work completed by the new owners did not include cost estimates and duplicated work already completed by the first owner.
- The property eventually ended up in foreclosure.
In a letter to HUD officials, Greger said her department "does not dispute many of the criticisms associated with the Ashley Towers project" but the city "entered into the agreement in good faith."
Changes made
As a result of the audit, the Housing and Neighborhoods Department underwent a series of changes to shore up its Home program.
"We have received HUD-sponsored training and technical assistance on most of the issues and re-worked our policies and guidelines as a result," Greger said.
In addition, she said that department-wide changes were made to better monitor Home, and other programs administered by the department.
"Before I came to the city, there were virtually no internal controls set up on the program," she said.
The changes put in place since the audit have earned HUD's approval, and the city received $2.7 million through the Home program in both 2009 and 2010.
"HUD is satisfied with the city's response ... and remains optimistic that when the final [payment] is made that the audit recommendations and responses will have been satisfactorily met and the matter officially closed," wrote Joe Phillips, a HUD spokesman, in a statement.
Greger said that no repercussions were taken against staff members who oversaw the program because they are no longer with the department.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million#ixzz2dsQsZG7R
Quote from: thelakelander on September 03, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.
I would guess that the loss of federal funding for a majority of projects would at lease cause some who are causing the problems we face to go away. That in itself would be a huge gain for Jacksonville. What is really scary is that if this kind of easy (by comparison) to find misuse and graft (Because why else hide it? Why else not just do it right like a thousand other cities do?) is going on, imagine what we have yet to begin to find out about.
Quote from: strider on September 03, 2013, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: m74reeves on September 03, 2013, 07:50:45 PM
cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million
QuoteHousing audit leaves Jacksonville on the hook for $2.7 million
City must pay U.S. back for housing program mismanagement.
Posted: June 14, 2010 - 7:04pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site
Audit findings
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhood Department has to pay back the federal government $2.7 million because of mismanagement of a housing program. An audit conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of the City's Home Investment Partnership Program, among other things, found that:
- The city approved a $900,000 loan for a company to purchase an affordable housing complex, despite the fact that company already owned the complex for more than two years.
- Three loans given for the purpose of buying or renovating affordable housing complexes were used on properties that ended in foreclosure.
- Because of the foreclosures, the three properties did not meet key requirements of the program.
- A $500,000 loan was given for the purchase of an affordable housing complex, but documentation verifying that purchase was lacking.
By Matt Dixon
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhoods Department is paying $2.7 million back to the federal government because a housing program was mismanaged, according to documents reviewed by The Times-Union.
A little known 2008 audit said that the Home Investment Partnerships Program, administered by Housing and Neighborhoods, provided money for the purchase and renovation of two affordable housing complexes - Ashley Tower Apartments and Magnolia Point Apartments. Those complexes ended up in foreclosure and did not complete key requirements of the program.
The Home program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and provides money to local governments or nonprofits with the aim of buying or rehabilitating affordable housing. The city is repaying HUD by taking lesser annual Home allocations over a three-year period.
Read the 2008 report here
The audit found that because the two complexes entered foreclosure, they did not provide affordable housing for the length of time required by the program. As a result, the audit said, the city should have stepped in and purchased the properties to allow them to continue providing affordable housing.
City housing officials disagreed.
Wight Greger, director of the city's Housing and Neighborhoods Department, told HUD that the city was not in a financial position to buy and operate the housing complexes.
She said that HUD's own rules do not require a city to purchase a foreclosed property, which sold at a foreclosure sale for $700,000, but say that it "may use purchase options."
Beyond criticizing the city for not stepping in, most of the audit's specific findings of "noncompliance" were related to $2.2 million in loans given to two owners of Ashley Tower.
In 1993, the city gave a $1.4 million Home loan to Sandy Seligman to purchase and renovate Ashley Towers, which ended up in foreclosure. Six years later, the city approved another $900,000 Home loan to Tower Place Apartments, the new owner of Ashley Towers.
The audit notes several issues with this second loan. Among them:
- The loan was approved for the purchase of the complex despite Tower Place apartments having already owned the property for more than two years.
- Work completed by the new owners did not include cost estimates and duplicated work already completed by the first owner.
- The property eventually ended up in foreclosure.
In a letter to HUD officials, Greger said her department "does not dispute many of the criticisms associated with the Ashley Towers project" but the city "entered into the agreement in good faith."
Changes made
As a result of the audit, the Housing and Neighborhoods Department underwent a series of changes to shore up its Home program.
"We have received HUD-sponsored training and technical assistance on most of the issues and re-worked our policies and guidelines as a result," Greger said.
In addition, she said that department-wide changes were made to better monitor Home, and other programs administered by the department.
"Before I came to the city, there were virtually no internal controls set up on the program," she said.
The changes put in place since the audit have earned HUD's approval, and the city received $2.7 million through the Home program in both 2009 and 2010.
"HUD is satisfied with the city's response ... and remains optimistic that when the final [payment] is made that the audit recommendations and responses will have been satisfactorily met and the matter officially closed," wrote Joe Phillips, a HUD spokesman, in a statement.
Greger said that no repercussions were taken against staff members who oversaw the program because they are no longer with the department.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million#ixzz2dsQsZG7R
Quote from: thelakelander on September 03, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.
I would guess that the loss of federal funding for a majority of projects would at lease cause some who are causing the problems we face to go away. That in itself would be a huge gain for Jacksonville. What is really scary is that if this kind of easy (by comparison) to find misuse and graft (Because why else hide it? Why else not just do it right like a thousand other cities do?) is going on, imagine what we have yet to begin to find out about.
Know what Strider? You are correct. Federal funding has been the core motivator for the interest and involvement of several elected officials in Jacksonville. It's easy money to use and abuse and there is a "ton" of it. Frankly, if some of it were to be taken, some of the "users" of the system will find the piggy bank has dried up and just stay the heck out of local politics. That alone would be a very good thing for Jacksonville.
Wasn't the owner of 129 2nd going to file a lawsuit? What could a possible outcome of that look like?
Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.
^I think you have to take projects on a case-by-case basis. However, it doesn't appear code enforcement has been doing that.
Doesn't matter. There are procedures to follow in a historic district and they are very clear cut
Quote from: jaxbeachguy on September 03, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.
At this point the conversation is about thwarting the legal processes required when the city accepted the Federal Funding. If the funding is not being used correctly then we are looking at a violation of process and that has little to do with one's feeling about preservation and everything to do with Federal law when dispensing those funds is done improperly and for the wrong reasons. Right now, that is the bottom line and the most pressing issue.
^agreed...and it appears that the City has been bypassing established layers of review to ensure that we are handling money properly and treating our historic neighborhoods properly.
Perhaps they could be fined $250 per day until they put the houses back together again
Quote from: jaxbeachguy on September 03, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Where is the line between historical/worth preserving and outdated, dilapidated and in need of demolition?
It appears to me that the market is speaking loudly on the issue, but key participants are not listening.
QuoteRECIPIENTS shall forward documentation to the SHPO for each historic property proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recent structural analysis, a summary of alternatives considered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation plan, and the views of the public.
This sort of says it all. The idea of using federal funding in areas like 32206 is to reduce the blight and to support the community by building it up, not tearing it down. Reducing blight does not automatically mean tear old buildings down and, from the above, if you do, you need to at least have a plan of what to do to replace it. By rehabbing buildings using a federal program, like was going to be done by the Planning Department with 253 East 2nd Street, you support the community and help build that market you were mentioning.
Ignoring federal guidelines to just demolish a historic building to spite a community or put money into someone's pocket, does quite the opposite.
An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District.
And besides, jaxbeachguy, we are talking about an historic district where the city's own ordinances REQUIRES it to preserve these homes. Many so-called dilapidated homes are beautifully restored. You would not believe the before and after pictures for some of them.
Bottom line is there were and are rules to follow regarding the expenditure of NSP funds and their use with 50 year old homes that were blatantly ignored. No way is there any backing out of this one. The Feds will be notified and respond accordingly. For now the cat is out of the bag and this will shut things down.
Absolutely beyond my scope of understanding. I guess to work for the city you have to lack values and a conscience. I know, duh.
To report a violation or request an inspection, please call our office at (904) 255-7859 or report the violation by calling C.A.R.E. at (904) 630-CITY.
I don't want to be a wiseguy, but has anyone called and reported these shacks? If enough people complain, then action may be taken? A coordinated effort? Time is not on the side of these properties. Is not occasional arson a factor as well?
It seems to me from reading the countless threads about these demolitions in Springfield that some of these houses are clearly not structural deficiencies and public dangers, but rather simple blight. And while in my humble opinion some of the houses are not worth saving if there is nobody that wants to save them, they certainly aren't worth demo'ing until someone can come up with a subjectively better replacement.
But of those homes that absolutely do have historical and architectural value and are not public dangers, yet still find themselves victims of the bulldozer - TAKE THE ~$30k IT COSTS TO BULLDOZE AND CLEAR THE LOT AND APPLY A FRESH EXTERIOR COAT OF PAINT AND REPLACE A FEW WINDOWS, MAYBE RESOD THE FRONT/PUBLIC PART OF THE LAWN!!! Then maybe someone will see potential and buy the house! And if not, certainly the property values of surrounding homes could increase by $5-$20K+ over a block or so and increase the tax base!!
Where the hell is the pragmatism? It costs money to demo and clear a lot. With that money, instead of tearing down and creating a vacant lot, a home can be fixed up in a very material way, almost to the point of appearing to be occupied by middle class residents who have some degree of upkeep standards.
How are there so many roadmaps for gentrifying similar blighted streetcar neighborhoods yet nobody following any of these proven roadmaps in Jacksonville? I know it takes a booming economy to see things on a grand scale across an entire city, but blighted neighborhoods have been totally turned around in 5-10 years time in similarly sized, "aging" industrial cities such as Milwaukee, Providence, Memphis, and Richmond!
Although 253 East 2nd Street is pretty bad (one city agency wanting to rehab and one city agency wanting to demolish and both using the same federal pot of money), 129 East 2nd Street is bad in its own way as well, to recap:
1.) Ms. Brooks house was located in a historic district and was a contributing structure in that district
2.) Against her will, her house was demolished -- and she was not properly notified
3) A structural report done by code enforcement suggested that the only unsafe part of the house was the front porch
4) The historic preservation commission requested that code enforcement stabilize the front porch
5) The next day the entire structure was demolished
6) Code enforcement did not file a "section 106" review prior to taking action, nor did they do any of the following:
QuoteD. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with
the demolition of contributing buildings
within an historic district or
properties listed on or eligible fo
r listing on the National Register until
the procedures set forth in
Stipulation D. are completed.
Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
12
1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation
to the SHPO for each historic property
proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recen
t structural analysis,
a summary of alternatives consid
ered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation
plan, and the views of the public.
2. If the SHPO determines t hat the proposed
demolition is the most feasible alternative,
the SHPO shall develop a Standard
Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with
Stipulation VI.
3. If the SHPO determines that the St
andard Mitigation Meas
ures do not apply,
RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council
and initiate the consultatio
n process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)
To be able to demolish a historic structure today, Code Compliance must either take the demolition to the HPC like everyone else or declare it an "extreme and imminent threat to public safety". The purpose for that ordinance is to allow for those times when, as an example, a fire damages a building so badly that the remains of it are actually about to fall down. There is then a real threat to the pubic and it must be taken down immediately. In the case of both 129 and 253 East 2nd Street, the process took a week at least if not months , a year or more if we believe the heads up we got over a year ago stating that we, the community, would have to be willing to lose houses like 129 and 253 East 2nd St if we wanted to benefit from NSP3 funding. Neither house was a "extreme and imminent threat to public safety", not only based on common sense but the actual engineering reports Ms Scott had done prior to demolition. Of course, NSP3 funding by design can not and should not be used for true emergency demolitions, but, as we can see, Ms Scott does not care about doing things right.
Now, the properties have liens for the demolitions on them. $ 11,619.26 ($10,495.00 demo costs and $1,124.26 admin) on 129 E 2nd and $ 18, 203.60 ($16,995.00 demo costs and $1,208.60 admin) for 253 E 2nd ST. One wonders what happens if those liens were to get paid? Would Ms Scott have to pay back the federal government or would she just pocket it and have more money in her budget? Is it even proper to lien for those demolitions when federal funding was used for those demolitions especially when these demolitions where done against the will of the owners and a majority of the residents of the community?
If I were a historic preservation commissioner or a city councilman, I would request an independent audit of the city's NSP 1 and NSP 3 program BEFORE the federal government asks for one.
Be pro-active here.
a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District. So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.
Quote from: mbwright on September 04, 2013, 08:43:11 AM
a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District. So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.
True --
Quote from: sheclown on September 04, 2013, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: mbwright on September 04, 2013, 08:43:11 AM
a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District. So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.
True --
Except from Kimberly Scott....so says the Office of General Counsel's Jason Teal (In HPC minutes telling staff and commissioners they can not question a demolition by Kimberly Scott). Gotta wonder what is really going on here ...
Quote from: strider on September 04, 2013, 08:21:56 AM
Now, the properties have liens for the demolitions on them. $ 11,619.26 ($10,495.00 demo costs and $1,124.26 admin) on 129 E 2nd and $ 18, 203.60 ($16,995.00 demo costs and $1,208.60 admin) for 253 E 2nd ST. One wonders what happens if those liens were to get paid? Would Ms Scott have to pay back the federal government or would she just and more money in her budget? Is it even proper to lien for those demolitions when federal funding was used for those demolitions especially when these demolitions where done against the will of the owners and a majority of the residents of the community?
Can anyone confirm that liens have actually been filed on these properties? I'm only seeing a "Notice of Pending Lien" for both of these. Perhaps I'm not looking where I should be...
OK...sorry see the liens on the tax collector's site...was looking for them in the public records. My question is what is the "admin" portion of these liens...cost of the engineering reports, recording fees, title search, what?
Is there any way to be able to see a copy of the actual lien?
so, the city is using Federal funds to demolish, and then is also filing a lien? getting paid twice. Regarding protection, it is only as good as the enforcement, sort of like a restraining order. No real physical protection.
The problem with the "protection" is that it isn't worth much if the city chooses to ignore it. You can sue all you want but the building is gone.
QuoteD. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with the demolition of contributing buildings within an historic district or properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register until the procedures set forth in Stipulation D. are completed.
Source: Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008 12
1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation to the SHPO for each historic property proposed for demolition, to include the reason for demolition, a recent structural analysis, a summary of alternatives considered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation plan, and the views of the public.
2. If the SHPO determines that the proposed demolition is the most feasible alternative,the SHPO shall develop a Standard Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with Stipulation VI.
3. If the SHPO determines that the Standard Mitigation Measures do not apply, RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council and initiate the consultation process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)
I'm sorry, but this all seems pretty basic. If you want to demolish a historic structure, or any structure that is at least 50 years old, using NSP funding you need to follow some pretty basic steps. One would think that a department head that we tax payers pay over $100K a year would have enough basic reading comprehension skills that she could understand the above and be able to direct her people to follow it. She does have a Masters degree, right? We know she reads this forum and that she can put words together to form sentences. This tells us she has to have read the 106 review information and must understand what it says.
So that leads us back to one basic premise. Kimberly Scott has reason to want to totally ignore what is right and proper. There are really only a few reasons people do that. Ignorance, Money and Power.
I think we have addressed the ignorance. Ms Scott is not some random high school drop out that ended up in a high level position of power. She is reasonably well educated and so it appears we should be able to rule out simple ignorance. She might be able to use that excuse if this was the first time she ever dealt with NSP funding, but since she got to spend that one million dollars from NSP1, not so much.
So why does Ms Scott refuse to follow the rules, the same ones probably a thousand other cites do every day? That leads us to why do two related demolition contractors (Micheal Lloyd Hauling and P&G Landclearing (Grady Lloyd)) get the vast majority of the contracts? Do they always get the "emergencies"? And how about the fact that a change order for one property that was not an emergency was for more than the original bid? And yes, one of the two above did it. If something that major was found, wouldn't it be better to wait and re-bid? After all, it wasn't an emergency. Would that have not saved the city money? (remember, if someone can;t afford to fix a house, they probably won;t be paying that demo lien anytime soon either.) Or was it just to make sure a certain contractor got more? Just questions ... at this point.
Have you ever had a meeting with Ms Scott about something the "city" thinks you did wrong? I have. She came to the meeting totally ill-prepared and without any of the information she should have had. She was defensive about what her department did, she made facts up and she lied in front of a councilman. (it was only Dr Gaffney though...). She told him I was not cooperating and would not allow her inspectors into our houses. The truth was a bit different. Had Ms Scott brought her files, it would have been seen that we had indeed allowed her inspector into our houses (several times, in fact), had allowed him to take pictures and we had been passed as perfectly legal by that same inspector. I informed her of the facts and she immediately called me a liar. The facts just didn't fit with Ms Scott's agenda; doing the bidding of SPAR Council (AKA SRG at the time), so she lied to try to make her case. The issue is those records are public record and so those lies get exposed. Did she do it because she was having her ego or wallet stroked? Or is she simply that bad at her job?
The above example goes to another motive for ignoring the 106 review process. Ms Scott's ego does not allow her to be wrong and if it is implied she did wrong, she gets first defensive and then is hurt almost to tears. This personality does not allow for being restrained by following the law. At the same time, she sees that to be somehow special, she must insure everyone else follows those laws even if she doesn't have to. This is why her department goes after everyone with such a vengeance. I like to say that they get off on the misery of others, but it really isn't exactly that. It is building up your ego at the expense of others. Talk to people who have had dealings with Ms Scott's department. Even higher level city workers will tell you how bad her department is, but only in private. In public, they fear for their jobs and so keep their mouths closed.
Ms Scott's influence goes through her department and effects not only Planning and Development's Historic Department but also the Building Inspection Department and even the Office of General Counsel. She can get the Historic Planning Commission told to ignore the language of the law and not to ever review an emergency demolition, she can influence the permitting process for condemned properties, how the laws are interpreted and get people told to enforce her version even when it it obviously wrong. There is power at play here, from well above a department head that serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and that normally means money as well.
So, to whomever is reading this, from Jason teal, Kimberly Scott or Mayor Brown, know this. This is important. This is real. The end game is to have a Municipal Code Compliance department that functions the way it was intended, not to satisfy the egos or wallets (if that's the case...) of a few. One that helps people and therefore does indeed make for a better and safer Jacksonville. A city that values it's older housing stock and actually follows it's own laws and does so with heart not ego.
And that is worth risking all those millions of federal funds going somewhere other than Jacksonville. That would be a city I would be proud to live in. Jacksonville now ...... not so much.
Quote from: stephendare on September 03, 2013, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: strider on August 20, 2013, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: sheclown on August 18, 2013, 05:04:32 PM
PSOS did a public records request for this property along with 129 East 2nd Street. Although it took awhile, we did get the records this week. We were hoping to get some info on what MetroNorth was planning to do with the property. Those records are there.
Additionally, there is this lovely nugget.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/lenscrafters0001.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/lenscrafters0001.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/lenscrafters0002.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/lenscrafters0002.jpg.html)
FWIW, I was that "attendee".
Additonally, for what it is worth, the city spent in excess of $10k to demolish. Removing that front gable over the porch, or bracing it, would have been significantly less than $10k.
However, the flip disregard for historic properties shown by Crescimbeni, is quite alarming as well.
Hes an ass more than half the time. He has funny comments though. Assy but funny. ;)
Just to set the record straight, the $ 1,000.00 quoted to "brace the structure" was not for the entire structure but an amount to brace only the remains of the front porch gable. Ms. Scott is either badly mistaken or being purposely misleading in her e-mail to a councilman. In the engineering report ordered by Ms Scott and paid for by us tax payers, the only thing that was considered an emergency and imminent threat by the professional engineering firm was the front porch gable, not the main house. Bracing it at $ 1,000.00 seems a bit more sensible that paying the about $11,000.00 for the demolition and the potential lawsuit the city is now facing.
The city is closing libraries, complaining about budget shortfalls and yet the Mayors office is allowing a paid employee make decisions that cost the city many times what they should and puts the city on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands in legal liabilities. Remember that while the funding for the actually demolition may have been from NSP funding, the resulting liabilities, put at above $200,000.00 each based on previous financial records from similar lawsuits, would be directly from us tax payers not any kind of federal funding.
And to think that Ms Scott and others are trying to say we are the ones out of touch with reality.
Quote
Recreation & Community Development Committee
Matters relating to recreation; public housing; economic development; affordable housing; farms; forestry; fish and game; parks; zoo; international trade and travel issues; Sister Cities program; Jacksonville Public Library; Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Department; Agriculture Department; Jacksonville Economic Development Commission; Jacksonville Housing Commission; Jacksonville Housing Authority; Community Services Department; ad valorem property tax exemptions; historic preservation; community revitalization; Waterways Commission; vessels for hire; Urban Services Districts; the Neighborhoods Department; education and schools; Duval County School Board; literacy issues; higher education institutions and issues; military bases; personnel and affairs; base realignment and closure (BRAC) issues; veterans' issues; and all related subjects.
Guess who's chair?
Committee Members
John R. Crescimbeni - Chair
He needs to be removed from office, before he does more damage. He obviously knows nothing about History, or Preservation.
So where is the property owner in all of this?
From what I can gather, in a nice subdivision near the Shands Bridge.
QuoteEmergency Demolition of Public Housing Structures and Section 106 Applicability
Question:
What Section 106 procedural and documentation requirements apply to emergency undertakings?
Answer:
Section 110(k) of the NHPA as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) states that no federal agency shall give assistance to an applicant who intends to intentionally create an adverse effect on historic properties. This is to prevent federal agencies from rewarding applicants for neglecting and/or mismanaging historic properties and thus undermining the goals of the NHPA. However, under the Section 106 regulations (see 36 CFR 800.12), "Emergency Situations"), there are specific times when emergency undertakings may occur with federal assistance. First, §800.12 applies only to undertakings that will be implemented within 30 days after a disaster or emergency has been formally declared by the appropriate authority (President, Tribal government, Governor, local government's chief executive officer or legislative body). Second, the types of emergency undertakings intended to be covered under §800.12 include, but are not limited to, immediate and essential responses to storms, floods, acts of war or terrorism, and other threats to life and property. Sec. 800.12 is not intended to cover cases of property-owner neglect or mismanagement.
When the agency official determines that §800.12 applies, the following procedural and documentation requirements apply:
Notify the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, and other consulting parties of the properties to be affected prior to the undertaking and allow them an opportunity to comment within 7 days. Notification can be by telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter. Comments may be submitted likewise.
If the agency official determines that circumstances do not permit 7 days for comment, the agency official must notify the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, and other consulting parties and invite any comments within the time available. Again, notification can be by telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter. Comments may be submitted likewise.
When a local government official serves as the agency official (for purposes of Section 106 compliance), the same procedural and documentation requirements as noted above apply. However, if the ACHP or SHPO/THPO objects to the proposed emergency undertaking within 7 days, the local government shall comply with §800.3 through 800.6.
If §800.12 does not apply to a proposed "emergency" undertaking, then the agency official must comply with §800.3 through 800.6.
Sec. 800.12 encourages agencies to develop procedures, Programmatic Agreements, and other agency alternatives to streamline the Section 106 compliance process for emergency undertakings.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/environment/review/qa/historicproperties
After lifting my chin off the floor all I could say was "WOW."
How much more wrong can the use of NSP funds be in regards to demolitions in Springfield?!
Was watching the budget approval today and there was a discussion on funding for demolition of,properties. They asked about a particular property in Springfield and Ms. Scott told council that indeed the city had demolished the structure. And I have to say she said it with a smile and twinkle in her eye. During the discussion councilman Lumb was trying to have it noted that the specific funds in question could not be used for demolition. He stated he was inquiring as he had concerns that he has heard the city was destroying Springfield and something must be done about it.
Thanks for sharing. I am appreciative that CMLumb is listening to Spfld preservationists. It will happen.
Quote from: edjax on September 25, 2013, 09:41:38 PM
Was watching the budget approval today and there was a discussion on funding for demolition of,properties. They asked about a particular property in Springfield and Ms. Scott told council that indeed the city had demolished the structure. And I have to say she said it with a smile and twinkle in her eye. During the discussion councilman Lumb was trying to have it noted that the specific funds in question could not be used for demolition. He stated he was inquiring as he had concerns that he has heard the city was destroying Springfield and something must be done about it.
Hey edjax, can you tell us the approximate date/time of this discussion? They started budget discussions Tuesday night and continued Wednesday afternoon. I'd like to view that bit of video. Thanks!!