QuoteBut those alternatives aren’t cheap, said Code Compliance Division Chief Kimberly Scott.
Scott said by email she had heard suggestions that $1,000 might pay for some bracing, but answered those figures simply “are not realistic; this cost strongly indicates lack of structural engineering drawings, permits, construction, etc. required for proper bracing.â€
If people try to improvise repairs, “makeshift bracing may further damage structures,†she added, saying it’s not the city’s place to repair houses anyway.
Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.
Lumb said he’s planning legislation that could help preservationists by creating “structured workouts†of fines that pile up on decrepit buildings.
Whatever happens to that measure, Lumb said the city could protect its historic areas better by just looking harder for choices short of demolition.
To some people, losing that history is a very big deal.
“Watching those two houses recently come down,†Pryor said, “I was almost brought to tears.â€
full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-09/story/demolition-debate-mounting-jacksonville-city-hall-old-buildings-go-down
It is on the front page of the paper.
Thank you Steve Patterson for your interest in Springfield.
Quote
Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.
This is why we have laws on the books -- to settle the differences neighbors often have. Not code's decision to decide which
group to follow.
Law clearly states to protect its historic fabric. And in this case, the neighborhood lost out on a federally funded renovation of close to a quarter mil.
We can't even save the historic fabric when we are paid to do so.
Wake up Jacksonville.
Quote from: sheclown on July 09, 2013, 08:25:50 AM
It is on the front page of the paper.
Thank you Steve Patterson for your interest in Springfield.
Quote
Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.
This is why we have laws on the books -- to settle the differences neighbors often have. Not code's decision to decide which group to follow.
Law clearly states to protect its historic fabric. And in this case, the neighborhood lost out on a federally funded renovation of close to a quarter mil.
We can't even save the historic fabric when we are paid to do so.
Wake up Jacksonville.
Agree COMPLETELY! And yes, thank you Steve Patterson for caring about our historic homes. Jacksonville.....WAKE UP ALREADY! The law is clear and Kim Scott does not seem to care to follow the law.
"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so? Fullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.
Other people's money is right. There's something ethically wrong with forcing the demolition of private property when the property owner desires something different. If the owner is struggling to shore up an existing structure, they sure as hell won't have the money to build from the ground up. Visit some place like the Eastside of Detroit if you want to see what your inner city neighborhood will look like after years of this failed policy in the works.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 09, 2013, 11:40:38 PMThe present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.
How is building new completely from the ground up, cheaper than rehabbing something that has many elements already in place.? Not EVERY board has to be replaced in any rehab. I suppose if a house (any house of any age) catches on fire, it must be completely demolished regardless of how much damage was done?
Question(not rhetorical): How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield? LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas? THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable.
There are literally hundreds of empty lots now in Springfield.
Growing weeds.
Wasn't there a lawsuit filed and settled regarding a house on Laura Street a couple of years ago? How much did that cost the city?
Other people's money, indeed. How about other people's property?
Quote from: suburbanite on July 09, 2013, 11:40:38 PM
"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so? Fullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.
Just a few things wrong with this post. To start with, the guy had a $300,000 loan, not cash. Meaning that as he did work, the funds were released, The guy lost his job so I'm sure the balance of the funds were never distributed so it is a very safe bet that only a part of those funds were ever released and spent on the house. Today the $250,000 number would have worked. Suburbanite, you are trying to fool us and not succeeding.
A huge issue is how people and therefore the historic housing stock is treated by Municipal Code Compliance. The inspectors treat everyone like some scum off the rim of a dirty tub. They tell you to fix your house or else and then make it as difficult as they possibly can to do that. They insist you follow the rules but often do not themselves. Which is how lawsuits get filed and won against the city. So when you start talking about other people's money, in this case, it is ours, the tax payers, and it is being wasted by settling lawsuits for taking houses down without following the rules. How practical it that?
And that lot that is now ready for a new house? It is so contaminated by liens and fines, it will sit for years until the city finally forgives those fines and liens for some new developer who mostly likely will let it sit longer anyway. Maybe it gets cut and maybe it doesn't. Not fun to live next to either.
As to Ms Pryor putting her money where her mouth is? She is currently working on getting several houses rehabbed. And having to fight the hindering of MCC at every turn.
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu337/sortudo7/They-see-me-trollin-They-hatin.jpg)
"Question(not rhetorical): How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield? LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas? THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable."
There is one new construction home being built. The rest is all resales/renovations. Suburbanite makes no legitimate points. Not one.
Also, where the heck do you think, Suburbanite, that the city gets the money to demo the houses?? TAX money - its OUR money! If you are upset about using "other people's money" then be upset about that. It is cheaper to mothball the house than to demolish it. And since its OUR money being used then the cheaper option ought to be how the city uses OUR money.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 10, 2013, 05:15:52 AM
Question(not rhetorical): How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield? LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas? THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable.
In SPR there are 3 single family homes under construction and a multifamily development set to break ground in the Fall. Many more renovations underway.
Can't speak for the other areas.
I mean, even myself and my six-grade brain (paraphrasing Stephen), realizes that tearing down houses in the hope that the site is developed in the future is silly if an inventory of undeveloped lots exists.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 09, 2013, 11:40:38 PM
"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so?
Had the city shored up this property back when it first became a problem, then there would be little need to "do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards". Chapter 518.302(a)8, Notice to owner states the following:
QuoteSec. 518.302(a). Notice to owner.
(a)Whenever the Chief finds any building or structure to be unsafe, he/she shall serve notice of such finding upon the owner, owner's agent, lessee, mortgagee and occupant as provided in this Section and shall order such unsafe building or structure, or portion thereof, to be made safe by repair or restoration or to be demolished and removed. The notice and order shall be written and shall include:
- The street address, if any, of the unsafe structure and a legal description of the property upon which the unsafe structure is located;
- A description of the building or structure or portion thereof deemed unsafe;
- A statement of the particulars in which the building or structure or portion thereof is unsafe;
- A reasonable time, to be not less than 30 days or the date set for a hearing whichever shall first occur, for compliance with the order;
- A statement that the city shall have the right to demolish the building or structure without further notice if the offending conditions are not remedied within the time required;
- That any repairs or demolition performed by the city shall cause a special assessment and lien to be placed for the total costs thereof and administrative fee.
- A statement that the owner shall be subject to penalties provided in this Chapter if the offending conditions are not remedied within the time required; and
- That the city, notwithstanding the above, reserves the right to proceed with an action foreclosing the lien placed against the property upon which the nuisance existed, to hold the owner of the, property personally liable for the cost of correcting the offending condition, or placing the lien on the tax rolls for collections purposes.
- A statement of the right of appeal as provided in this Chapter.
In this case, the City, once it has performed abatement action, has the authority to take the property from an owner who does not make the necessary repairs via foreclosing their lien. They could then perhaps sell the property to someone who would repair/restore.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 09, 2013, 11:40:38 PMFullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in.
I agree with strider's comments posted earlier regarding this. It was a loan. I don't know of any bank that would hand someone $300,000 before any work had been done. Those types of loans are more often based on draws - you are reimbursed for work completed. Yes, it is now a vacant lot. Think about it...if this had happened to you, would you maintain a property that had so many liens on it that it is unlikely to ever be sold or built upon? If the City wanted to destroy the structure, then they may as well take the land and maintain it as well.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 09, 2013, 11:40:38 PM"Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.
Suburbanite, how do you know that Ms. Pryor doesn't put her money where her mouth is? On what are you basing that statement? Did she tell you that personally? Oh, wait....I get it. You, like Ms. Kimberly Scott, have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, first my apologies to Ms. Pryor for the "money where her mouth is" comment. It may well be. As for the owner's rehab loan, whatever he spent, wasn't enough to get it even inhabitable. As for economics, there is no way a quater mil could be enough to save that property. It would be less expensive to start over, from the ground up, liens or not. Regarding other people's money, I don't think it should be spent 'shoring up' other people's property. That money is for infrastructure, not private property. You can't afford to maintain a derelict, dangerous, POS eyesore? Sell it for what it's really worth (what someone will actually pay for it), not for what you wish it's worth, or to recoup your costs. And certainly don't blame the city for enforcing the building codes. That is the property owner's fault, not the city's. Those codes are to protect other's safety and property values. Too many empty lots in Springfield? Is it because few people want to live there? Or are they all so heavily encumbered by city fines and liens? Riverside - Avondale doesn't seem to have that problem. I do not want to see historic structures demolished needlessly, but if the owners are going to let them rot, that is who you blame, not code enforcement. I believe in private property rights, but no right is absolute. This 2nd and Liberty property had a closing coming soon? It had been there 100 years, and was just days away from salvation? Wow. That's irony. Or BS. If these projects were economically sound, we'd be beating the developers away. Springfield can be renewed, but it's not going to be like Avondale or San Marco. It's needs to be affordable to buy, and keep. Historic money pits won't work. That's how I see it.
Quote. This 2nd and Liberty property had a closing coming soon? It had been there 100 years, and was just days away from salvation? Wow. That's irony. Or BS
Metro North was purchasing it and planning on renovating using NSP 3 funds. Check out the front page of Tuesday paper.
First, Riverside used to be pretty seedy at one time too. I know what I'm talking about. Second, $250k would have been more than enough as the house had been completely rebuilt inside, new trusses and new covering on the roof. You see, instead of doing a bad flip where you paint over bad stuff and then sell to an unsuspecting buyer, this person started with making the house structurally sound first, like you should do before prettying it up as seems more important to you. Again, you are commenting without knowing the whole story. Which would be fine if you weren't so cocky and arrogant about your supposed knowledge and nicer about it. Third, Stephen, is Surbananite really Big Nugget under a new name?
Quote from: sheclown on July 11, 2013, 06:30:57 AM
Quote. This 2nd and Liberty property had a closing coming soon? It had been there 100 years, and was just days away from salvation? Wow. That's irony. Or BS
Metro North was purchasing it and planning on renovating using NSP 3 funds. Check out the front page of Tuesday paper.
No kidding, I have a copy of the signed contract on my desk, it was real.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 11, 2013, 07:29:09 AM
Third, Stephen, is Surbananite really Big Nugget under a new name?
LoL :)
I think even those of us in Riverside Avondale should be concerned about this. It's foolish to think that what is going on in Springfield can't happen in our neighborhood. Springfield has maybe 20-30 years on average of age over most homes in Riverside Avondale. Take that age + current glut of foreclosed and/or vacant houses and you can be cooking up some properties that will have code and unhappy neighbors going crazy. That is why we need to have better policies in place.
Dont be offended suburbanite I was accused of being big nugget too. I guess they really cant beleive there are lots of people that dont see eye to eye with them. If you dont agree you must be lying or you should move away. That appears to be the mentality of this group. Meanwhile I personally continue to enjoy my historic home and help the neighborhood where I can
Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2013, 12:16:13 PM
In this case, remember that we have access to more of the information than is apparent.
u can haz IP log?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3495704/miami-beach-mayor-launches-new.html
Article in Miami about the Mayor stepping in to help save historic homes.......
Quote from: tpot on July 11, 2013, 05:29:14 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3495704/miami-beach-mayor-launches-new.html
Article in Miami about the Mayor stepping in to help save historic homes.......
Those communists. Don't they know the only way to jumpstart economic development is to level buildings/neighborhoods and hope for the best?
Quote from: tpot on July 11, 2013, 05:29:14 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3495704/miami-beach-mayor-launches-new.html
Article in Miami about the Mayor stepping in to help save historic homes.......
I doubt our mayor will do this. He seems more motivated to attracting re-election money from big donors than actually being a leader out in front of public opinion. I voted for him, but so far he has not done much to impress me.
Kiva. That's what I heard tonight too.
Who is "Big Nugget" LOL! I'm a genuine newbie to this site. My writing style is tongue-in-cheek, if that's offensive, stop taking yourself so seriously. I am a long time resident (since 1974, age 12), who knows the west bank neighborhoods as good, if not better, than anyone. Please, I'm admittedly no Wayne Wood, but I am intimately acquainted with the area. I'm also very acquainted with Springfield, too.
I never doubted the existence of a pending contract on 2nd and Liberty, just the ability to successfully close. My interests are architecture, city planning, and sociology; not necessarily in that particular order. I'm not formally trained, but read as much as I can. Yes, it's sad to see these buildings go, but to patch and band-aid them at city cost is crazy talk. As if we don't have more pressing needs than those dubious wants. Historic fabric? That's not going anywhere. Unless of course the city tries to "La Villa" the neighborhood, which I would oppose. But I don't see that happening. What I do see is people blaming the city for being in a no-win situation. Leave the structures, shore 'em up, confiscate 'em, sell 'em, with only a hope and a prayer the cycle doesn't repeat itself, while endangering nearby lives and property values; or knock'em down, removing any danger, and allow for a new beginning. Springfield will never be what it was, the Acosta Bridge and Riverside-Avondale sealed that envelope. But there is plenty of hope for it, let it evolve.
But the problem is that Springfield is becoming LaVilla, one by one. Take a look at Historic Lavilla before, and after. Take a look at the total house and commercial building inventory numbers before and now, in a nationally recognized Historic District (Springfield).
It all has to do with the current definition of "unsafe" as used by Ms Scott. If a house has plumbing issues, if the electricity is cut off (most often cut by them) and if there are holes in the wall, then the public is at grave risk from that house.
I guess that none of us would be here under those definitions as our ancestors would have been killed off by those unsafe houses they lived in that had no plumbing, no electricity and had cracks between every log.
The phrase" in the name of public safety" has become a death sentence for many houses here in Springfield and the current actions on the part of Ms Scott and the resulting meek response of the historic staff and the Office of General Counsel has proved that Ms Scott has a lot of power and is going to use it to demolish as many houses as possible. $400,000.00 going to her for that purpose from NSP3 alone.
Maybe when the leadership begins to realize that the recent demolitions did not just cost the demolition funds that will never get repaid but up to $ 200,000.00 each from the lawsuits, they might figure it out and make the needed changes to stop the nonsense.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 11, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
Who is "Big Nugget" LOL! I'm a genuine newbie to this site. My writing style is tongue-in-cheek, if that's offensive, stop taking yourself so seriously. I am a long time resident (since 1974, age 12), who knows the west bank neighborhoods as good, if not better, than anyone. Please, I'm admittedly no Wayne Wood, but I am intimately acquainted with the area. I'm also very acquainted with Springfield, too.
I never doubted the existence of a pending contract on 2nd and Liberty, just the ability to successfully close. My interests are architecture, city planning, and sociology; not necessarily in that particular order. I'm not formally trained, but read as much as I can. Yes, it's sad to see these buildings go, but to patch and band-aid them at city cost is crazy talk. As if we don't have more pressing needs than those dubious wants. Historic fabric? That's not going anywhere. Unless of course the city tries to "La Villa" the neighborhood, which I would oppose. But I don't see that happening. What I do see is people blaming the city for being in a no-win situation. Leave the structures, shore 'em up, confiscate 'em, sell 'em, with only a hope and a prayer the cycle doesn't repeat itself, while endangering nearby lives and property values; or knock'em down, removing any danger, and allow for a new beginning. Springfield will never be what it was, the Acosta Bridge and Riverside-Avondale sealed that envelope. But there is plenty of hope for it, let it evolve.
The only difference between LaVilla and Springfield is the pace, the result is the same.
What is the difference between paying $2,000 to a contractor to mothball a property and $5,000 to demolish it, except that 3,000 of tax money gets wasted in the later situation? It the city has the capability to do one, it can just as easily do the other.
The fact is these properties are not unsafe to begin with, it is a BS excuse.
I have to say, you totally lost me on the Acosta Bridge/R-A comment. Care to explain?
Has anyone dug really deep to see if there might be a hidden motive behind these "fast-tracked" or instant demolitions? Specifically when it was revealed that no bids are taken for the demolition services provided by a favored contractor. Follow the money.
Quote from: Ralph W on July 12, 2013, 12:54:08 PM
Has anyone dug really deep to see if there might be a hidden motive behind these "fast-tracked" or instant demolitions? Specifically when it was revealed that no bids are taken for the demolition services provided by a favored contractor. Follow the money.
There are people trying to follow the money. And pulling their hair out by the roots in the effort. They face one roadblock after another and no one seems to know anything. No wonder our city is in the shape it is in... :o
Ralph, got any suggestions, tips or pointers on how to get the info??
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 12, 2013, 08:05:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph W on July 12, 2013, 12:54:08 PM
Has anyone dug really deep to see if there might be a hidden motive behind these "fast-tracked" or instant demolitions? Specifically when it was revealed that no bids are taken for the demolition services provided by a favored contractor. Follow the money.
There are people trying to follow the money. And pulling their hair out by the roots in the effort. They face one roadblock after another and no one seems to know anything. No wonder our city is in the shape it is in... :o
Ralph, got any suggestions, tips or pointers on how to get the info??
I have already made the request and have the appropriate individual waiting for me to come and view the files. I haven't been feeling well enough to get down there. I can contact the city and tell them you are coming in my stead to view the files if you like. That would be the best thing perhaps. My chronic pain has me immobile at the moment. Do you want to do that? If so I will send you the contact name, phone number and email them letting them know you will be there to view the purchase orders. You can see them next week for sure. :)
That would be great Diane We will talk off line
Quote from: sheclown on July 12, 2013, 08:25:02 PM
That would be great Diane We will talk off line
Okay Gloria, give me a call tomorrow or Sunday afternoon if you like. :)
To answer the questions for the hundredth time, yes, many of us live IN or NEAR a "POS" like the ones being demolished. Every morning I look at one from my kitchen window, praying every day that it just gets to hang on a bit longer. I did not move to a historic district to see empty lots. While I appreciate thoughtful infill, we have plenty of places for that to happen right now.
I spent far more restoring my house than a sane person should have, because that's what it needed. Isn't that my right? There are more people like me out there - not many, but enough, a few at a time. It won't matter if the houses aren't there when the people are ready.
And yes, other areas should be concerned too...Springfield just happens to be on the bleeding edge of the trend.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 12, 2013, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: suburbanite on July 11, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
Who is "Big Nugget" LOL! I'm a genuine newbie to this site. My writing style is tongue-in-cheek, if that's offensive, stop taking yourself so seriously. I am a long time resident (since 1974, age 12), who knows the west bank neighborhoods as good, if not better, than anyone. Please, I'm admittedly no Wayne Wood, but I am intimately acquainted with the area. I'm also very acquainted with Springfield, too.
I never doubted the existence of a pending contract on 2nd and Liberty, just the ability to successfully close. My interests are architecture, city planning, and sociology; not necessarily in that particular order. I'm not formally trained, but read as much as I can. Yes, it's sad to see these buildings go, but to patch and band-aid them at city cost is crazy talk. As if we don't have more pressing needs than those dubious wants. Historic fabric? That's not going anywhere. Unless of course the city tries to "La Villa" the neighborhood, which I would oppose. But I don't see that happening. What I do see is people blaming the city for being in a no-win situation. Leave the structures, shore 'em up, confiscate 'em, sell 'em, with only a hope and a prayer the cycle doesn't repeat itself, while endangering nearby lives and property values; or knock'em down, removing any danger, and allow for a new beginning. Springfield will never be what it was, the Acosta Bridge and Riverside-Avondale sealed that envelope. But there is plenty of hope for it, let it evolve.
The only difference between LaVilla and Springfield is the pace, the result is the same.
What is the difference between paying $2,000 to a contractor to mothball a property and $5,000 to demolish it, except that 3,000 of tax money gets wasted in the later situation? It the city has the capability to do one, it can just as easily do the other.
The fact is these properties are not unsafe to begin with, it is a BS excuse.
I have to say, you totally lost me on the Acosta Bridge/R-A comment. Care to explain?
First off, yea I know, the injury and fatality rate from unsafe buildings is appalling, but it could be worse. That's why we have codes. Gotta admit, I've seen some magnificent houses in Springfield brought back from death's door. One in particular was on a corner of 2nd and ? (couple blocks west of Main) overlooking Confederate Park. Saw it in the late 80's and thought, "Wow! What a POS, but good bones and a view. A decade later, I checked up on it to find it restored to it's former glory. Problem is, few people of those means will even consider Springfield as a home. My hat's off to those of you that have the means to restore those old houses, because I can't see the return on investment in most cases. That's why I believe restoration of Springfield, as a whole, has to be targeted to those that can afford to live there. There's no real draw to the area, other than views of Confederate Park.
As for my comment regarding "The Acosta Bridge/R-A". Springfield was developed in response to The Great Fire. People of means wanted out of town, and that was the new upper-class area. But only 20 short years later, the Acosta Bridge opened up South Jacksonville, and Riverside-Avondale was being developed. The smart money went south from Springfield to greener pastures. Springfield had 20 good years. By the 40's it already was less than desirable and was in decline. The same fate befell San Marco and Riverside-Avondale in about the same time-frame, but... those areas still had the river and hadn't devolved as far as Springfield, also R-A had the silver-lined cloud of road development threatening to destroy it, which to my understanding, is what led to the activism that birthed RAP. San Marco had... well, they have San Marco. And Springfield? It has... rotting buildings, crime, and not much more. I'm not trying to slag it, but that's what I see.
Was Springfield ever considered a redlined neighborhood? I've seen an early 20th century map on a St. Johns Park brochure showing everything north of downtown being redlined except for Springfield and Brentwood. It seems publicly subsidized policies to segregate races could have been a negative for Springfield that Riverside/Avondale and San Marco have never had to endure.
On the other hand, this could have been a blessing for Springfield during the height of the urban renewal era (same as inner city Savannah & Charleston) because the city basically ignored it during the era of urban renewal's height of popularity. Downtown and LaVilla were not so lucky.
Suburbanite: The house I think you are talking about was done by a couple who bought it as a burn out, got married in the burnout and then restored the house as a bed and breakfast. While they no longer own that house, they still live in Springfield, actually just around the corner.
None of us preservationists really have a problem with the codes. Unfortunately, the actual codes do not matter much in these cases as Ms Scott doesn't have to follow them herself, she can make things up as she goes. OK, so that isn't exactly true but only seems like it. Ms Scott, as the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance was given a wide range of power to interpret those codes and laws. She directs her inspectors in how to apply those codes and so the true intent - the helping of and protecting of the residents of Jacksonville - becomes secondary to some ego trip she is on. We do indeed have a problem with that. You should as well. She could be sending someone to your house next.
The car is perhaps the biggest reason places like Avondale and Riverside took the top spot from Springfield. Even so, Springfield remained somewhat exclusive until the sixties. The same thing that happened to the vast majority of urban areas across the country happened to Jacksonville's. Suburban living won, urban living lost and was left for the poorer among us.
Springfield was certainly "redlined". It was a huge issue for a couple of decades. The 1998 auction helped to change that.
The original SPAR was created because an ordinance was going through city council in about 1974 that basically would have started the "bulldozers" at the parks and not stopped them until 20th Street. Brent Stanton of Old Time Hardware was part of that and has great information about it.
Quote from: suburbanite on July 11, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
Who is "Big Nugget" LOL! I'm a genuine newbie to this site. My writing style is tongue-in-cheek, if that's offensive, stop taking yourself so seriously. I am a long time resident (since 1974, age 12), who knows the west bank neighborhoods as good, if not better, than anyone. Please, I'm admittedly no Wayne Wood, but I am intimately acquainted with the area. I'm also very acquainted with Springfield, too.
I never doubted the existence of a pending contract on 2nd and Liberty, just the ability to successfully close. My interests are architecture, city planning, and sociology; not necessarily in that particular order. I'm not formally trained, but read as much as I can. Yes, it's sad to see these buildings go, but to patch and band-aid them at city cost is crazy talk. As if we don't have more pressing needs than those dubious wants. Historic fabric? That's not going anywhere. Unless of course the city tries to "La Villa" the neighborhood, which I would oppose. But I don't see that happening. What I do see is people blaming the city for being in a no-win situation. Leave the structures, shore 'em up, confiscate 'em, sell 'em, with only a hope and a prayer the cycle doesn't repeat itself, while endangering nearby lives and property values; or knock'em down, removing any danger, and allow for a new beginning. Springfield will never be what it was, the Acosta Bridge and Riverside-Avondale sealed that envelope. But there is plenty of hope for it, let it evolve.
The contract was with MetroNorth CDC, I think they'd have no trouble finding the funds.
Oh, I know those policies are still at play. I own a couple of properties in the area and it's been pure hell working with banks and appraisers.