City Files Foreclosure Suit on Bostwick Building
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2636-p1040966.JPG)
The City of Jacksonville has just filed suit against the owners of the historic Bostwick Building to foreclose on the City’s code enforcement lien on that property. Here is a copy of the Verified Complaint.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-nov-city-files-foreclosure-suit-on-bostwick-building
Boom.
WOW. Of course the owners are going to just keep fighting this at every step. What would happen with the water intrusion suite from the neighboring property owner?
I think it is the first good thing Kimberly Scott has done, or at least signed. I hope demo is off of the table.
Nice. I'd like to see more of this happen with many of our distressed properties.
Quote from: stephendare on November 27, 2013, 02:33:26 PM
What this means is that the Bostwicks will have to pay the delinquent fines on the property or they will lost it.
They can well afford to pay the fines, but the questions is whether or not they think their property is worth the 60k in back fines that they owe or whether they want to continue paying the rolling fines.
So maybe they should have taken that offer from a few months ago?
dang.
I hate the rolling fines, I hate the arbitrary nature of them. I believe they have caused more damage to historic properties than termites and fire -- many properties in Springfield are forever poisoned with them -- can't get a mortgage, can't get a buyer -- folks run away and don't lock the door behind them. That being said, I'm glad to see this option for the Bostwick Building. As Jason so wonderfully proved at the LUZ meeting, the owners are demolishing by neglect. As the brothers stated "we have the money to fix it up, it just doesn't make economical sense to do so."
I do not think this is a positive in any way. Like the "emergency demolition" issues, this, the ability of Kimberly Scott to foreclose on what are often simply punitive rolling fines without just cause, is a scary "first". Mr. teal said before, from what I have been told, that City Council would be the one to ask this be done. That makes sense to me. If the rolling fines are already there, then at least having to get permission from City Council is a great check and balance to insure the action is indeed for the greater good. Allowing Ms. Kimberly Scott, who has proven time and time again that nothing matters to her but her own agenda, is not the answer here.
Another thought is why is Jason Teal doing this for MCC? Sherry Shaw, I believe, is the OGC representative these days. Even if Jason Teal asked Kimberly Scott to do this, what did Ms. Scott get in return? How many other suits are being prepared that are not for the betterment of the public but to satisfy some need or agenda of Ms Scott? What will she get to tear down in exchange for "saving" the bostwick if that is indeed her agenda here.
Guys, the Mayor's office, along with City Council, wants this building saved. The only way to save it is to get it out of the Bostwick's hands. They have time to sell it themselves if they are smart.
Kimberly Scott was told to sign the paper. This is not her decision. I think it is a necessary and brilliant move by the Mayor's office.
I think the issues in Springfield and this case are a little different. The main reason is that the city is on record saying this building is to be saved. They aren't doing that in Springfield. I wish they would, but that is for another thread.
Bottom line is that the city is not going to stop fining them as long as they own it, unless they fix it up.
Quote from: Kay on November 28, 2013, 09:25:59 AM
Guys, the Mayor's office, along with City Council, wants this building saved. The only way to save it is to get it out of the Bostwick's hands. They have time to sell it themselves if they are smart.
Kimberly Scott was told to sign the paper. This is not her decision. I think it is a necessary and brilliant move by the Mayor's office.
You don't want to awaken that sleeping giant. This should have been done through City Council even if it took longer and was more awkward. Kimberly Scott got something for doing this, Jason Teal always seems to make sure she does. And Ms Scott has proven time and time again that the rights of us tax payers mean nothing to her. And anyone who thinks this issue with MCC is confined to only Springfield, they have not been paying attention.
That said, of course I agree the building should be saved. I am just not sure of the price others will have to pay to do it this way when another, perhaps safer, way was initially proposed.
^ the heavyweights on City Council are enthusiastically supportive of this move
What if the City just wants control of this building so they can demolish it themselves? They don't want YOU to destroy the historic fabric when they have worked so hard to build a reputation for destroying historic buildings.
There comes a point when neglecting a property has consequences for your neighbors. In this case the Bostwick's neglect has gotten so bad they're neighbor has sued them for a water intrusion issue. It's hard to have much sympathy for them, they've brought this on themselves - letting the building deteriorate, not paying their fines, refusing to sell it to someone who'll take better care of it. My only real worry would be what happens with the water intrusion suite, and how long the owners will be able to fight the foreclosure before the building gets stabilized.
Quote from: stephendare on November 29, 2013, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 28, 2013, 03:48:48 PM
^ the heavyweights on City Council are enthusiastically supportive of this move
Perhaps they could file the necessary paperwork, separately from Kim Scott and our mayor, to satisfy the correct way it should be done?
Would the Council have the authority do do that? Either way if hate to see this turn into another Council-Mayor turf war.
Who were the recipients of 2013-377? Then why the legislation?
Quote from: Noone on November 29, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Who were the recipients of 2013-377? Then why the legislation?
That was the bill that basically, As I understand it, "moved" money from one special fund to make it a more general fund and to set it as the funding source for certain abatement activities by MCC. The funding comes from nuisance liens, demolitions and such being repaid. What we need to look at is the fact that if any of the original funding for the abatement activity was from federal sources, once it is repaid, it needs to go back to the federal source rather become part of the city general fund. That particular bill had nothing to do with the Bostwich except perhaps if the property is foreclosed upon then sold, the repayment of any actual nuisance liens would be put into the account that this bill addressed. The rolling fines, if ever really paid, would go elsewhere I believe.
Bill Type and Number: Ordinance 2013-377
Sponsor: Council President at the request of the Mayor:
Date of Introduction: June 11, 2013
Committee(s) of Reference: PHS; F; RCD
Date of Analysis: June 14, 2013
Type of Action: Appropriation
Bill Summary: The ordinance appropriates, pursuant to Ordinance 2007-286-E, $539,244.81 ($377,243.19 from Nuisance Abatement Liens, $63,940.39 from Interest Sanitary Assessment, $23,528.86 from Demolition Assessment, and $74,532.37 from Code Violation Fines) to the Nuisance Abatement Lien special Revenue Fund to provide funding for nuisance abatement contracting to remove property code violations city-wide in compliance with Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, as initiated by B.T. 13-071; provides for carryover of funds to Fiscal Year 2013-2014.
Background Information: The City of Jacksonville encourages property owners to correct outstanding code violations. Some owners fail to ensure compliance, often due to neglect. Common privately-owned property safety and maintenance code violations include nuisance overgrowth, accumulation of garbage, trash, rubbish and/or debris; failure to maintain residential and commercial minimum building standards; unsafe structures which require condemnation, and abandoned/junk vehicles. The purpose of the appropriation in this ordinance is to provide funding for nuisance abatement contracting to remove property code violations city-wide. The Nuisance Abatement Lien Special Revenue Fund, which previously supplemented general revenue funding for nuisance abatement contractual services, now serves as the primary funding source to support contractual services.
Policy Impact: Neighborhood Department/Municipal Code Compliance Division
Fiscal Impact: The ordinance appropriates $539,244.81.
Analyst: Jackson
This brings up very interesting questions. Thanks Noone
Thank you sheclown for all that you do. On another side note 2013-673 was withdrawn. it was to persue grants related to Brownfield property. Is this the new game? Park View? Isn't that tied up in some contamination law suit now being initiated by the city?
City takes over Bostwick property. What becomes of pending lawsuit?
Environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold
Apparently the pending law suit will be withdrawn if the property gets renovated. That is really all the neighboring property wants
^That's good to hear. Hopefully they'll come to a compromise, as it's unlikely the city will be able to undertake the restoration if they get it, but clearly they want to get it to someone who will.
This hearing has been re-scheduled for this Friday, March 7, 2014 at 10:30. The document did not state what room, so I'm assuming it's the same as the previously scheduled hearing, Room 705. Should be interesting as this is the FIRST TIME in the history of Jacksonville's Code Enforcement 'rolling fines' a foreclosure action has been started.
So if the city takes ownership do they perform any maintenance or mothballing to prevent further deterioration? The place has immediate needs, doesn't it?
Court rules in favor of City in Bostwick Building foreclosure
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542414
That sounds like a good move. So I assume now that the rolling files will stop (the City will not fine itself) and the property will be put up for sale (or auction)? It would be so nice to see something positive happen to this beautiful structure. It sits on what is currently the primo location on Bay St.
^The foreclosure is based on the fines. The building will be ordered sold and that will be the payment of the fines (plus whatever legal fees are decided on). If the next owner just gets it up to code there won't be any more fines.
Yes, while everyone is excited that this is happening because we were told the city did not want to foreclose unless there is a buyer waiting in the wings, it is unfortunate that the owners did not get a deal worked out on their own. The rolling fines hurt much more than they ever help and having MCCD and Mr Teal being able to cite the Bostwich as a reason rolling fines "work" is very unfortunate.
Even then, once this is done, the city becomes the owner and that has worked out so well for other buildings like the one at 9th and Main. We must hope that the city does the right thing here, but to be honest, I'm not holding my breath.
Has it really worked out well for the building at Ninth and Main? I hope you are being sarcastic. There is currently a little yellow paper on Ninth and Main, citing the owner for not keeping the brush trimmed. Too funny.
Quote from: MusicMan on March 10, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Has it really worked out well for the building at Ninth and Main? I hope you are being sarcastic. There is currently a little yellow paper on Ninth and Main, citing the owner for not keeping the brush trimmed. Too funny.
Yep, I was...
No argument on 9th and Main, but this is kind of a special case. There was an owner who wasn't keeping up his property (to the extent it was affecting neighboring buildings), had sought to tear it down rather than fix it up, and there is at least one buyer willing to purchase it.
If Ovinte is still interested in purchase, I hope they pick it up at auction for less than the previous owners were asking. Just to add insult to injury. ;)
Per article on JBJ Klempf says he is still interested.
Quote from: stephendare on March 07, 2014, 04:06:49 PM
From The City a bit earlier today:
QuoteStephen and Ennis, I just wanted to give you a heads up on the latest developments related to the Bostwick Building.
At today's hearing, the Court ruled that the City is entitled to foreclosure of the property and set the amount of the City's lien at $71,000. The next step will be for the Court to determine the amount of the City's attorneys' fees and costs, which will be added to the lien total. As soon as that determination has taken place, the Court will order a judicial sale of the property.
Anything on this yet? Seems like a month would be sufficient time to determine the attorneys' fees and costs and get this moving.
QuoteBostwick Building scheduled for late July auction
The beleaguered Bostwick Building could be in the hands of a developer by late July.
A circuit court judge on Tuesday granted a judgment on the city's attorney's fees and costs at $78,774 and ordered the property to be sold on July 21, said Chris Hand, chief of staff for Mayor Alvin Brown. In a foreclosure auction, the reserve is set at the judgment amount.
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/05/20/bostwick-building-scheduled-for-late-july-auction.html
Pass the hat! The MetroJacksonville Building!!! :)
"In a foreclosure auction, the reserve is set at the judgment amount."
If this were true, no one would buy property at foreclosure sales because often times the judgment amount is way more than the property is worth....
The Bostwick has sold.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543453
The building has sold for $165,100 to Foodonics Equities LLC, represented by attorney Leslie Dean. A quick search (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4564383) shows that this is Dixie Egg Company, the business of Jacques Klemp, who tried to buy the building last year.
$78,774 will go to the city to cover the back fees the Bostwicks hadn't paid. This means the former owners get at most $86,326. As the article notes, Klempf was under contract to buy the building from them for $325,000 as recently as last year.
Good. Sounds like someone who has plans for the building and the means to carry them out.
anyone know how many people were actually bidding? If it went for over double starting bid looks like it was a good auction
So the Bostwicks cost themselves about $160,000? For not working with Klempf earlier?
What about the law suit from the adjoining building? Isn't that what held up the original Klempf deal?
I do know that if the city forecloses on a property because of backed taxes everyone else who bought a certificate is S.O.L. I am going to assume in order to get that money back they may have to put forth another case against the Bostwicks personal property if they have any. they were claiming at one point to want so much because they had that judgement to pay out. They ultimately cost themselves a lot more by having their property taken by the city.
Especially given that they previously turned down offers that were a lot higher even than the last one. And the fact that the property would be a lot more valuable if they hadn't let it deteriorate through negligence.
Bostwick loss = tax write off
They will do fine.
I know it was about the fines. I was just saying maybe since the city doesn't pay tax certificates in the event of the foreclosure maybe they won't pay out judgments against the previous landowner in any case. I am not too familiar with the process of the fine foreclosures. But I see where it may have been misworded my apologies
Quote from: spuwho on July 21, 2014, 09:18:53 PM
Bostwick loss = tax write off
They will do fine.
Any tax experts here ? I doubt that they could use the last offer they received (and declined) as basis for determining their loss. Depends on what the adjusted basis for the building is.
Also, the next question (again, do not know enough about US tax laws) is even if they could show a loss, would this just decrease their taxable income (so tax decuction would be their tax rate * loss) or would it decrease their due tax amount ?
Who cares what they can write off on their taxes.
They refused about a half a dozen good, reasonable offers on the property since 2007.
And the entire time they let the building rot.
Good riddance.
I'm glad that chapter has been written and a new chapter has finally begun.
Quote from: fieldafm on July 23, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
Who cares what they can write off on their taxes.
They refused about a half a dozen good, reasonable offers on the property since 2007.
And the entire time they let the building rot.
Good riddance.
I'm glad that chapter has been written and a new chapter has finally begun.
Here here.
Quote from: fieldafm on July 23, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
Who cares what they can write off on their taxes.
They refused about a half a dozen good, reasonable offers on the property since 2007.
And the entire time they let the building rot.
Good riddance.
I'm glad that chapter has been written and a new chapter has finally begun.
Word.
Not just let it rot, too. Actively worked for demolition of the property.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 23, 2014, 02:27:00 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on July 23, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
Who cares what they can write off on their taxes.
They refused about a half a dozen good, reasonable offers on the property since 2007.
And the entire time they let the building rot.
Good riddance.
I'm glad that chapter has been written and a new chapter has finally begun.
Here here.
Definitely agree - the most important thing is that the building gets a new chance.
However, I feel it's a bonus that greed and stupidity did not go unpunished this time ,.so I hope there isn't the chance for a tax write-off - that was my point here