Metro Jacksonville

QuotePanel ponders demolition for boarded, but sturdy, Jacksonville buildings
Group mulls removal to stem blight

By Steve Patterson Fri, Apr 25, 2014 @ 3:47 pm | updated Fri, Apr 25, 2014 @ 9:45 pm

A Jacksonville panel on neighborhood blight began considering legislation Friday to authorize demolishing some boarded-up buildings whether they're structurally sound or not.

Buildings that have been vacant and boarded for at least two years, and aren't historic, could be labeled unsafe structures under a draft bill that city attorney Cherry Shaw circulated to the Stand Up For Neighborhoods Blight Committee.

The legislation has not been formally introduced yet, and Councilwoman Denise Lee said more discussion is needed before a bill is proposed to the council.

Unsafe buildings can be demolished by city order.

Local rules haven't allowed that when buildings are structurally sound, but advocates for new rules argue existing laws still allow buildings, and neighborhoods, to decay.

"We've got to create something new," Lee told the committee, an informal group she formed with Chief Administrative Officer Karen Bowling and Sheriff's Office administrators.

The idea was greeted hesitantly.

"If the house is not unsafe, we can still go in and demolish it?" Councilman Warren Jones asked after the bill was first outlined. "... I need to think about it."

Jones later suggested a provision to exempt a building from demolition if its owner has posted it for sale through multiple listing services, saying a property shouldn't be razed if there's an active effort underway to reuse it.

The city can order a vacant building boarded up if doors or windows are left open.

Jay Higbee, an executive at the Foland and Higbee property management company, told the committee he saw examples of vacant buildings downtown that seemed to argue both for and against demolition.

The landmark Seminole Club across the street from City Hall has been vacant for years but is in very good condition, he said. In contrast, he noted that the Bostwick building, an early-1900s building on East Bay Street, is historically important but decaying badly.

The demolition rules were being discussed in a panel Lee earlier formed to respond to "human blight," her term for the harmful effects of people hanging out on streets and porches, often dealing drugs.

Regulatory Compliance Director Kim Scott told panel members that vacant boarded buildings can become hubs for trouble and a drag on an area's quality of life.

"Imagine going home to a neighborhood where a vagrant frequently takes off the boards ... and is living in there," she said.

Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-04-25/story/panel-ponders-demolition-boarded-sturdy-jacksonville-buildings

one word:  mothball

goodbye downtown

WTF? Areas of town with a ton of vacant, overgrown lots (previous demolished building sites) look like a hot mess. Mothballing, picking up trash, maintaining yard growth and keeping the public ROW clean are more cost effective, visually enhancing and economically stimulating options for "blight" clearance.

We're not Detroit, Flint or Youngstown, we're a growing Sunbelt community. Why are we considering self destroying, shrinking rust belt city strategies? This hasn't worked anywhere else in cleaning or turning communities around. What makes anyone believe things will be different in Jax?

This will hit the historic (but unprotected by historic designation) black neighborhoods really hard -- Durkeeville, East Side,


We claim to want sustainability? What is sustainable about tossing away perfectly good buildings?

Of course it will. A look at the East side of Detroit will show you the end result of such a strategy. Jax can do better.

So the City spends money they don't have to tear down a structurally sound building just because it is vacant and boarded?  What's next?  Demolishing homes that are vacant and NOT boarded?  The City currently has lawsuites pending for Code Enforcement's demolition of houses - I'm thinking this will significantly increase those.  According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary), one of the definitions of blight is "a deterioriated condition" while another is "something that frustrates plans or hopes."  Perhaps it is the latter that is driving this initiative?? 

• Will someone please tell me how demolishing a boarded structure alleviates blight?
• What benefit does it provide the community?
• Depending on the size of the structure, it could cost significantly more to re-build than to renovate (remember, these are structurally sound buildings).
• Where will the City of Jacksonville get the funds to demolish these houses?

According to Kim Scott:

QuoteRegulatory Compliance Director Kim Scott told panel members that vacant boarded buildings can become hubs for trouble and a drag on an area's quality of life.

So you tear the building down????  The HOUSE is not the cause of the trouble....How about addressing the PEOPLE who cause the trouble??  If they are vagrants/homeless, lets figure out how to fix that problem (I have no idea how to do that btw).

Quote"Imagine going home to a neighborhood where a vagrant frequently takes off the boards ... and is living in there," she said.

If someone does get in, it's probably not a vagrant but a crook/criminal with proper tools.  In my opinion, this is a JSO issue.  If a structure is properly boarded, it is very difficult for a 'vagrant' to get inside, as they normally do not have the tools necessary to break in.

Let's say there are two houses side-by-side; one is occupied and one is vacant/boarded.  All other things about the properties are equal (structures are sound, yards are maintained, roofs are in tact, etc.)   Each has a current tax assessment of $150,000.

The City tears down the one that is vacant/boarded. 

• Taxpayers foot this bill.
• Property owners will likely no longer maintain the property.
• This causes real blight - yards that are overgrown.
• The City spends taxpayer dollars to abate the blight the City created by demolishing the structure.
• The City will continue to spend more taxpayer dollars to continue to abate because grass doesn't stop growing because the structure is gone .
• The City spent taxpayer dollars that effectively reduced it's income.
  
  
  
  • The improved property (with a structure) generated approximately $2,800 in annual property taxes.
  • Property taxes on a vacant lot are significantly lower than those on an improved lot.

Let's say it is in your personal best interest to promote demolitions....

But if Lori Boyer trusts Kim Scott enough to sing her praises at the Rules Committee meeting, who are we to question that? 

And ditto for the rest of the subcommittee...

And just who is going to keep these vacant lots clean that the city is going to create??  The city already doesn't take care of half the property it owns!!  This is a WASTE of our tax money and will hit the poorest of neighborhoods, primarily the African American community.

Then there is the question: What about property rights?!  If a structure is not unsafe then the city can't just tear down someone's property because they don't like it's appearance!

There are SO many things wrong with this, on so many levels...

Line up the 1983 claims...

So I guess my question, legally, is how the city expects to a) demolish structurally sound private property b) without purchasing it from the private owner, and not be sued? This defies logic, and the law. The only way to do this lawfully is through eminent domain, and they'd still have to pay for it.

COJ, if you want to reduce blight, clean up your own side of the street --

... literally,

mow the crow.

The demolition rules were being discussed in a panel Lee earlier formed to respond to "human blight," her term for the harmful effects of people hanging out on streets and porches, often dealing drugs.


http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-03-27/story/alarmed-about-drug-deals-jacksonville-councilwoman-targets-human-blight

Quote
By Steve Patterson   

The head of a Jacksonville City Council committee to combat blight is turning her focus to "human blight," a term she calls the damage caused by people hanging around street corners, often dealing drugs.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-03-27/story/alarmed-about-drug-deals-jacksonville-councilwoman-targets-human-blight#ixzz3019WrvkA

Seems to me a dangerous leap in the fight on blight.

This just drove my blood pressure to an all time high.  What a bunch of dingbats we have making decisions with regard to what should be demolished in our city.  It's frankly not only shortsighted it is ignorant and likely part of a bigger agenda on the part of some in our city.  Good money to be made in demolitions followed by bargain basement prices on land.  Damn....
This is sounding more and more like the rhetoric and planning that destroyed the fabric of LaVilla. 

Uh oh. So I guess I'm not allowed to hang out on my own front porch any more, lest I be cited as human blight? How ridiculously stupid can this City get?

http://www.oyez.org/2000-2009/2004/2004 04 108

This could happen here.

Darn. I can't figure out how to put an underscore instead of spaces. iPad-

Search for city of New London, CT/blight

^^Oh man, that's a scary scenario. Eminent Domain laws have always bothered me, especially since such power is easily abused.

^^BTW Ralph W, I have an iPad also and it has some quirks with usage of MJ. Seems MJ likes Microsoft OS better.

Quote from: Ralph W on April 26, 2014, 06:38:53 PM
http://www.oyez.org/2000-2009/2004/2004 04 108

This could happen here.

Darn. I can't figure out how to put an underscore instead of spaces. iPad-

Search for city of New London, CT/blight

That is not possible in florida following the passage of C.S.H.B. 2006-1567, which reformed eminent domain in florida to put relatively strict limits on exactly what constitutes a public purpose. This isn't one. The reality is that they're going to pay one way or the other if they start demolishing structurally sound private property without it being connected to needing the physical land for a public purpose, the only question is whether they pay up front to buy it at market value, or pay later plus the landowners' attorneys's fees and costs. This is not possible without payment to the landowner under the current state of florida law. I frankly don't see a way they can do this without paying for it, and quite possibly they may not be able to do it at all.

When detroit went in and razed neighborhoods, they already owned most of the properties for unpaid taxes, and were forced to acquire the rest. They didn't just send the bulldozers in, there is simply more to it than that. Even then there were still some notable holdouts who despite the urban wasteland still refused to sell. They are getting around that problem now by discontinuing basic services like garbage collection and road maintenance, which is a novel tactic and will probably work for dealing with the small handful of holdouts, but I don't think that's going to go over well here. Different culture in the south, people seriously value their property rights here.

Thanks Chris. This is good to know

Quote from: thelakelander on April 26, 2014, 09:33:57 AM
WTF? Areas of town with a ton of vacant, overgrown lots (previous demolished building sites) look like a hot mess. Mothballing, picking up trash, maintaining yard growth and keeping the public ROW clean are more cost effective, visually enhancing and economically stimulating options for "blight" clearance.

We're not Detroit, Flint or Youngstown, we're a growing Sunbelt community. Why are we considering self destroying, shrinking rust belt city strategies? This hasn't worked anywhere else in cleaning or turning communities around. What makes anyone believe things will be different in Jax?

From what I can find on line, the vast majority of the experts seem to think that demolition is not how you eliminate blight.  It is a punitive measure and yet it takes positive, helping measures to bring a struggling community back to a financially sound position.  Jacksonville has the law on the books to do the right thing, to repair houses when they have a roof leak, to mothball (at least in the Historic Districts) so that a house is preserved and they can, if the proper rules are followed, take houses and give them to new owners who may be able and willing to fix them and live in them. 

Being from Youngstown, Ohio,  I can understand they need to take down hundreds of houses that will never be needed in the next hundred years.  However, Jacksonville is a growing population, not a shrinking one.  The younger generations seem to wish a more urban environment so I fail to see any wisdom in the idea of razing the poor urban neighborhoods.  Is it to promote the new suburbs the developers want to build?  Is it because something is coming down the pike we don't know about yet that will make the urban land more valuable? It obviously is not to help the poor neighborhoods.

^Agree, it's really a head scratcher. I can't picture any elected official with a reasonable knowledge of law and politics contemplating destruction of viable private property.

Extend the mothball ordinance to include all structures 50 years and older. Get mccd to mothball using federal dollars. Lien the properties and foreclose if the liens aren't paid in a reasonable time period

It's sustainable   It's simple.  It's blight-reducing.  It protects housing stock. Hand mothball property over to someone who will rehab

Not really rocket science

Well, I agree that the vacant building themselves are not the problem...and we haven't come up with a correct term for the humans that are.  The two building side by side with one being occupied, most likely is not the issue.  The issue is with two or three or four of these vacant structures, dark recesses exist where all sorts of stuff goes on. Neighbors won't venture there for fear of muggings or shootings.  There is a solution!  Get JEA to foot the bill for lighting these ababndoned buildings...In factg, except for contirbuting to confusion for sea going turtle hatchlings, lighting is an excellent deterent to crime.  A law requiring guns in GA? How 'bout one requiring lights in FL?

It is kind of a lose lose situation. I think they want to get rid of buildings in order to eliminate hiding spots, but Jacksonville has a tendency to stand out as poorly lit compared to other areas I have been in. I like the idea of testing the water so to speak. Light the blocks for a few months and see what the results are before they go talking about tearing stuff down.

This brings up an excellent point.

Spending some of the blight money to light up alleys and dark spots would go a long way toward a healthier urban core.

I know Springfield struggles with getting alleys lit and bulbs replaced.

Simple fixes that don't require yellow tagging a complete community, or tearing down perfectly good houses.

AMENDED
NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES for April 17, 2014

April 21, 2014
5 p.m.

Amended to reflect that Aleizha Batson attended the meeting and includes the meeting date.

Location: Don Davis Room, City Hall, 117 West Duval Street.

In Attendance: Chair CM E. Denise Lee, CM John Crescimbeni, CM Jim Love, Sgt. Davis Oliver, JSO;
Lin White, Public Works; Michelle Tappouni, the Vice Chair of the Environmental Protection Board; Alison DeBelder, JALA; Terry Carr, EQD; John Flowe, EQD; Dave McDaniel, Public Works; Lisa Darnall, JTA; John Shellhorn, COJ-EQD; Connie Hold, ECA District 11; Cherry A, Shaw, OGC; Bryan Mosier, MCCD; Hosea Small, citizen; Jennifer Hewett-Apperson, DVA; Jim Robinson, Public Works; Alex Pellom, EPD; Melody Shacter, Business owner; Jeff Foster, Public Works; Sherry Wilson, Parks and Recreation; Calvin Burney, JPDD; Kevin Kozel, ECA District 14; Daphne Colbert, Dr. Juan Gray, SCLC, Aleizha Batson, COJ; and Dan Macdonald, ECA District 8.

Excused: CM Bill Bishop, CM Warren Jones, CM Johnny Gaffney

Special Note: Due to schedule conflicts the next meeting of the Neighborhood Blight Ad Hoc Committee will be on Wednesday May 7 at 10 a.m. in the Lynwood Roberts Room. The suggested date for the inspection trip vis JTA bus of the Blight Advisory Committee is Thursday May 22, 2014.

On Thursday May 22, a meeting of the Blight Advisory Committee will take place during an inspection trip via JTA bus.

The meeting convened at 10:15 a.m. April 17 and the minutes from the April 3, 2014 meeting were approved 3-0.

Mobile car washes
Terry Carr of the Environmental Quality Division distributed copies of the division's regulations on car washes and gave an overview of the division's inspection process which is solely concerned with discharges from car washes into public drainage facilities, not with permitting or licensing issues. Licensing and zoning issues are coordinated with the appropriate regulatory agencies. The division depends on reporting from the public or other agencies to identify facilities needing inspection. The inspection looks for any discharges from the site and whether the facility is utilizing best management practices for car washes, which are enforced by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Referrals to other regulatory agencies (FDEP, JEA, Tax Collector, and Code Compliance) are made by e-mail and telephone call. Council Member Lee suggested the need for a formal written letter in the City's files documenting all complaints and inspection results rather than dependence on the CARE system computer and e-mail records to provide verifiable proof of contacts.

Mr. Carr discussed the findings of the division's 5 inspections of the car wash at 4520 Moncrief Road as requested by Council Member Lee. The inspections found no run-off from the site during any of the 5 visits so the operator was reminded of the FDEP's best management practices and no further action was taken. Mr. Carr reviewed all of the information captured on the division's car wash inspection form. Chairwoman Lee said that car washes need scrutiny because of the possibility of the use of car washes as fronts for criminal activity; she has seen vehicles arrive and leave car washes with no actual washing taking place. Mr. Carr agreed to amend the inspection form to include an entry for any visible evidence of vehicles being or having recently been washed at the site.  Council Member Crescimbeni suggested a notation indicating whether water is available at the site as a clear indication of whether the facility could be a legitimate car wash or not.

Kim Scott stated that if Code Compliance inspectors see congregations of vehicles with none actually being washed, they will alert the Sheriff's Office of that suspicious behavior. Sergeant David Oliver of the JSO suggested that the DART enforcement/abatement could be used as an avenue for dealing with these problems. Ms. Scott said that the DART process starts with complaints from the public that must be verified by the JSO through observation of criminal by an undercover officer. The DART process brings many City resources to bear on a site, with multiple agencies enforcing their own regulations. Chairwoman Lee asked the Planning and Regulatory Compliance Departments to communicate about how mobile car washes are legally permitted and to coordinate their efforts to attack problem locations in the most efficient manner. Mr. Carr stated that the inspection form has been amended to clearly state that no discharge is permitted to the City's property, starting immediately. Ms. Lee suggested that the words "cease and desist" be added to emphasize that the conduct must stop immediately.
Motion: the committee accepts the revised inspection form as amended today – approved.

Mr. Carr said that if the violator does not cease the violation then the enforcement process begins, which can be time consuming while documentation is gathered, signatures are obtained, and an opportunity for compliance is given. Peggy Sidman of the Office of General Counsel explained the requirements for due process of law when a person's property or livelihood is threatened with seizure or shutdown, and offered to examine the applicable state laws and local ordinances to determine the minimum allowable time frame for legal action.  Mr. Carr said that his department sometimes utilizes negotiated settlements with violators if they agree to cease the activity without the City having to go through the full legal enforcement process.

Bus stop blight
Peggy Sidman discussed the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Law with regard to a public notice body taking a bus trip to make an inspection, noting that any member of the general public or the media who wants to ride along must be given that opportunity and that it would be preferable if the committee did not talk about its business while on the inspection visit but saved the discussion for a subsequent noticed meeting to talk about what was observed. The group discussed holding the bus trip in lieu of one of its regularly scheduled meetings. Lisa Darnall of JTA and Ms. Sidman will coordinate on the planning and noticing of the event for May 22nd. Ms. Darnall distributed and discussed a packet of information about bus stop usage nationally and mentioned that the JTA is considering eliminating some of its lesser used bus stops.  Ms. Lee reported that the Human Blight Committee received a list of crime incidents at bus stops from the JTA and JSO.

Robocalls legislation
Cherry Shaw of the General Counsel's Office reported on her research into the use of robocalls to call the phone numbers posted on illegal snipe signs. She has contacted code enforcement staff in several jurisdictions that use robocall enforcement to ask about their experiences and found that they are generally satisfied that the calls are working to reduce the illegal sign problem. The calls tell the company that their sign violates the City ordinance and requests that a company representative come to the code enforcement office to discuss the problem. Her research with the other jurisdictions indicates that no legislative change is needed to implement the robocall system and that the response of a sign poster to the call by visiting the code enforcement office is sufficient evidence for the officer to issue a code violation. Peggy Sidman suggested the prudence of adopting administrative policies to specify how many calls the City will make to each number each day so as not to be liable to a charge of harassment but to achieve the desired end.


Robocalls ITD solutions
Robert Prado, Acting Chief of Code Enforcement, has been meeting with the Information Technology Division about potential robocalling systems and their costs and capabilities. Call-Em-All is a cloud-based system with nearly unlimited capability for numbers that can be entered and called.  He estimates that Jacksonville's signage problem (assume adding 400 numbers per week) would produce about 15,000 – 20,000 numbers to be called per year, the cost for which would be $1,050 for 15,000 calls. The Voicent system would charge $1,900 for a license that would provide for an unlimited number of calls, but the capacity is limited by the number of telephone lines available to make the calls. It is estimated that 23 phone lines would be needed to handle the City's call volume at a cost of $1,000 per month. He is currently leaning toward recommending the RoboCall system with a one-time licensing cost of $1,900 and then the cost of the number of phone lines needed to handle the volume and to rotate numbers so that the companies don't recognize and block the City's incoming calls.  Jacksonville's number of signs and land mass make our sign problem much larger in scope than the other jurisdictions that have implemented similar systems. Mr. Prado is working with ITD on an enterprise solution that will reduce the number of phone lines needed and the cost for those lines and is working on estimates of the potential cost reductions available by making calls every other day rather than every day, or rotating phone numbers on a periodic basis to reduce blocking. ITD will need a database to store all of the numbers as evidence of the enforcement effort which will incur some additional cost. Ms. Lee requested that a representative of the Information Technology Division be present at the next meeting to address the robocall issues.

Chairwoman Lee requested the committee members to provide their list of 10 high priority thoroughfares to her office by Wednesday of next week.

The committee will move its next meeting to Wednesday, May 7th at 10 a.m. in recognition of The Players Championship beginning on the 8th, and the bus tour will be moved to the May 22nd meeting.

Downtown building deterioration
Kim Scott addressed the building at 218 West Church Street which has numerous continuing code violations and is visible from the windows of many council members' City Hall offices. The building has accumulated administrative liens of $250 per day since 2005 which now amount to over $800,000. The special magistrate has issued an order for ground floor windows to be replaced within 180 days and the building owner has contacted the Downtown Investment Authority for assistance in getting the liens removed, but a meeting has not yet been scheduled between the owner and DIA. Chairwoman Lee urged fair but forceful enforcement of the ordinance in the same manner as the code is being enforced in neighborhoods.

District 11 issues
Connie Holt, ECA for Council District 11 Council Member Ray Holt, reported on several problems on Taylor Field Road off Old Middleburg Road where 12 to 15 homes are placing their garbage cans at the end of a cul-de-sac between two homes. Code Enforcement and the Solid Waste Division are aware of the issue and it is a problem of long standing with no easy solution. Ms. Lee asked the Planning Department, JSO, Peggy Sidman and any other relevant division to meet and arrive at some solution for this problem. Ms. Lee requested a report at the May 7th meeting.

Ms. Holt also reported on a City park on Lannie Road that is part of property that is going to be incorporated into the National Cemetery where a dumpster has been removed by the Parks and Recreation Department because it was being used not by park patrons but by adjacent property owners for waste disposal. Ms. Lee asked the Parks and Recreation Department to report at the May 7th meeting.

Ms. Lee directed Dan Macdonald to send a letter to each council member and to the other non-Council committee members requesting their list of 10 high priority thoroughfares which will be submitted to the Mowing and Landscape Maintenance Division. Dave McDaniel was asked to report on his Division's plans and priorities at the next meeting.

Tire and sign buy-back update
Ms. Lee said that the buy-back was a great success and has kicked off additional community improvement efforts around the city, and congratulated everyone involved for their hard work and cooperation.

Jeff Foster reported that $136,038 of the $180,000 appropriated for the event was expended for the buy-backs, dumpster costs, publicity, etc. The remaining balance will be returned to the fund of origin. The event produced 109 roll on/roll off dumpsters of tires, which will be chipped and recycled, and 2 large dumpsters of signs. 23,958 tires were collected at a cost of $5.65 per tire versus $26.85 per tire for the tires collected by City forces during the neighborhood blight campaign. $41,275 was paid out in reward money of the $65,000 appropriated for that function. Ms. Lee asked Mr. Foster to produce a final report on the event for the next committee meeting and to recommend how often another buy-back event should be scheduled.

Public Comment
Melody Shacter, business owner, reported that blight is moving into the Arlington area and is hopeful that the same efforts being directed to downtown will also be directed to the neighborhoods. Mr. Prado said that his division is working with Jacksonville University to identify blighted corridors in the JU area for intensive attention.

Michelle Tappouni, the Vice Chair of the Environmental Protection Board, complimented the EPB staff for their good work. As a member of Springfield Preservation and Restoration (SPAR), she looked forward to continued conversation about the level of code enforcement in Springfield and how to develop a partnership and a good working relationship with Code Enforcement and the Blight Committee.

Hosea Small, resident, said that car wash regulations appear to be contradictory and hard to enforce. He suggested that the existing laws need to be better enforced, including requiring evidence that cars are actually being washed at the locations to prove that they aren't a front for other types of activity.

The meeting adjourned at 12:34 p.m.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2014, 10:34:30 PM

Quote from: twojacks on April 27, 2014, 09:26:46 PM
Well, I agree that the vacant building themselves are not the problem...and we haven't come up with a correct term for the humans that are.  The two building side by side with one being occupied, most likely is not the issue.  The issue is with two or three or four of these vacant structures, dark recesses exist where all sorts of stuff goes on. Neighbors won't venture there for fear of muggings or shootings.  There is a solution!  Get JEA to foot the bill for lighting these ababndoned buildings...In factg, except for contirbuting to confusion for sea going turtle hatchlings, lighting is an excellent deterent to crime.  A law requiring guns in GA? How 'bout one requiring lights in FL?

you have the option now of installing security lights for an additional 21 dollars a month added to your bill.

Thats what we did in springfield when we had a similar problem.  John and I lit the alleyways behind main street for two blocks.

Why dont you do that?

Actually, I did!!...I replaced an old sodium light that god only knows what that was costing me as a dusk to dawn.  The new light is an led double spotlight.  According to the packaging, it will cost me ...wait for it....$1.42 for each bulb  for a YEAR!  Don't remember exactly, but it was probably in the $30 up front range.

Quote from: stephendare on April 28, 2014, 09:25:18 AM
Is there a single example of a blighted area in Jacksonville that has ever been improved by these methods?

No.

We have poor neighborhoods because we have poor people....dropping a hammer on them hardly seems like a solution.

Any news on the community of hope campaign?

http://jacksonville.com/slideshow/2013-09-13/community-hope-event-edward-waters-college#slide-1

they have been tagging people out of living spaces for a long time. They are going to, in the end, have to go somewhere... I went into the ambassador not too long ago with an inspector and I saw a few door stickers... the odd things about the condemned stickers were they had different dates on them. Which means that task force they had was condemning the structure room by room in order to "run the trash out" where did those poor people go? to another neighborhood likely, however that method has "condemned" that whole neighborhood for what? over 5 years I am sure. So I think Lighting is a good start honestly. Its wort a try at the least.

 Stand Up For Your Neighborhoods Meeting Minutes
April 29, 2014
5 p.m.


Date: April 25, 2014
Location: Conference Room A, City Hall.

In Attendance: CM E. Denise Lee, CM Warren Jones, CM Jim Love; Paul Soares, Chief of Operations DCPS; Michael Love, Tax Collector's Office; Dianne Smith, Tax Collector's Office; Robert Prado, MCCD; Karen Bowling, Mayor's Office; Pat Ivey, JSO; Kimberly Scott, Regulatory Compliance; Bryan Mosier, MCCD; William Schaffer, Parking; Lisa Darnall; Loree French, OGC; Joe Cowan, JSO; Lin White, Public Works; Cherry Shaw, OGC; Terry Carr, EQD; Jennifer Hewett-Apperson, DVI; Jeff Foster, Public Works; Heather Reber, OCA; Janice Billy, OAC; Allison Adams, District 5 ECA; Steve Patterson, Florida Times-Union; Daryl Joseph, COJ Parks; LaCree Carswell, Neighborhoods; Joe Namey, Real Estate; Paul Tutwiler, NJCPL; John Jones, Real Estate; Jay Higbee, Farland & Higbee; Folks Huxford, Planning Department; Kenneth Adkins, Public Relations; Hosea Small, Resident/ Developer; Connie Hold, District 11 ECA; Devon Cody, Code Compliance; Kenny Logsdon, Neighborhoods; Allison Adams, ECA District 5; Kevin Kuzel, District 14 ECA; and Dan Macdonald, District 8 ECA.

CM Lee called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. and asked that minutes from the last meeting be approved. Loree French asked for a clarification of the minutes. She went on to explain that the city can ask title companies to bid to see if the price of title searches can be reduced. Also, such costs can be recouped when foreclosed properties are sold. However, there is a risk that the city is stuck with the cost if the property does not sell. She also explained that removing liens is a complicated process in that the city may not be the only entity to have a lien on a piece of property. CM Jim Love, Ms. French, Karen Bowling, Kim Scott, Michael Love, John Jones, someone from Planning and Development, and Jeff Foster to discuss ways to address liens and other obstacles to foreclosure and expedite the process.

Paul Tutwiler offered a suggestion that land banking strategies may be helpful in coming up with long-term disposition of reverted property. CM Lee invited Mr. Tutwiler to chair a future subcommittee on the disposition of properties. In the meantime he was asked to join the Love subcommittee.

MS Lee asks Ms. French to develop a flow chart to demonstrate what has to be done to work through the foreclosure process.

Pat Ivey distributed crime maps designating the types of crimes and the location of crimes in the target area. The number of crimes in the vicinity of UF Health (formerly Shands Hospital) is of concern as it keeps medical students from living near the facility. He also reported that special events that bring many more cars downtown are a source for downtown crime.

Chief Ivey reported that he had a conversation with Fred Clark at BJ Grocery at 13th and Moncrief. Mr. Clark admitted that drug activity happens on his property but not in his store. Chief Ivey spoke to him about operating a more legitimate business that would take advantage of the nearby church and school. Also, more patrols have been placed in the area.

Parking department reported that new signs have already been taken down. New ones will soon be erected. Ideas were shared about making the signs less vulnerable to vandalism.

Rev. Ken Adkins asked if it could be arranged for area pastors to ride with JSO Officers to get a better idea of the crime problem and what they can do to help.

Cherry Shaw reviewed proposed changes in the building demolition ordinance (Chapter 518.301-313). The draft changes would allow for demolishing non-historic buildings after they have been boarded for 36 months. Karen Bowling asked why wait 36 months? She asked if the time could be shorter. CM Lee suggested 24 months. CM Warren Jones offered reservations saying he'd have to think about these changes. He asked about a circumstance when an owner is making a good faith effort to sell boarded property and fails to do so after 24 months. Jay Higbee compared the Seminole Club, an empty building that has been kept in relatively good repair, with the Bostwick Building, which is in need of major repairs. Paul Tutwiler said that an advantage of demolishing such buildings is that it removes blight and the land could be offered to adjacent land owners.

Mr. Tutwiler gave a review of recent activities – an economic summit, community clean up, health and wellness event and minutes from a Hendersonville Neighborhood Association Meeting.

Due to time constraints the report on carwashes as well as a report on creative solution to vacant property issues was delayed until the next meeting.

The next meeting will be held at 9 a.m. May 16 in Conference Room A in Council Offices on the 4th floor of City Hall. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Package contains Minutes, sign-in sheet, audio CD.

Non historic - the feds define historic as 50 years old or older for the purposes of using federal funds to demolish houses.  Of course, all this means is that 106 reviews must be done and so the houses could still be approved for demolition.   And  "the land could be offered to adjacent land owners"; so the purpose of removing blight by demolition is to turn an urban area into suburbia?

Blight condemnations have been banned in Florida.  Of course, the city isn't saying it is blight until it is condemned. Doesn't that make the one causing blight to be the city itself?  When there are laws on the books enabling the city to repair a house, heck, even some of  the condemnation notices from MCCD say that the city will demolish OR REPAIR, wouldn't it make sense that in a growing city and when the trend among the younger among us leans towards urban living to save the urban areas?

Instead, we have committees trying to make it easier to bulldoze the urban core.

AMENDED
Stand Up For Your Neighborhoods Meeting Minutes
April 15, 2014
5 p.m.


Restates the conflicts different city agencies have concerning foreclosures.


Date: April 11, 2014
Location: Conference Room A, City Hall.

In Attendance: CM E. Denise Lee, Joe Namey, Real Estate; John Jones, Real Estate; Karen Bowling, Mayor's Office; Kimberly Scott, Regulatory Compliance; Devron Cody, Code Compliance; Claude Ayoub, JSO; Tony Davis, JSO; Jack Shad, Parking; Kirk Sherman, Council Auditor; Jim Robinson, Public Works; Daryl Joseph, Parks; Paige Johnson, OGC; Paul Tutwiler, NJCDC; John Shellhorn, Regulatory Compliance; Brian Mossier, MCCD; Elaine Spencer, HCCD; Lin White, Public Works; Jeff Foster, Public Works; Calvin Burney, Planning; Lisa Darnall, JTA; Rev. Kenneth Atkins, The Issachar Media Group; Angie Nixon, FNM; Hosea Small, property owner; Kevin Kuzel, District 14 ECA; Ken Adkins, Public Relations; and Dan Macdonald, District 8 ECA.

CM Lee called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. and asked that minutes from the last meeting be approved.

CM Lee asked that a letter of thanks be drafted for the sponsors of the Tire and Snipe Sign Buyback event. Jeff Foster said he'd provide an event action paper and a list of sponsors.

The Real Estate department provided a list of 106 total parcels in the target area that are valued at $5,000 or less. Of the total of 715 pieces of property in the target area, 50 are eligible for tax foreclosure. To do proper deed searches it would cost $150 per property. CM Lee wondered if the Tax Collector's office could waive the fee. Jim Robinson said this is an example of two agencies working in different directions. Code Enforcement wants the foreclosures, while at the same time the Tax Collector's Office is trying to save money by not foreclosing on the house and spending the $150 per property. There may be conflicting interests between city agencies whether or not to pursue foreclosures. Paige Johnston said if a list is compiled of all such property in the county, maybe the tax collector could give the City a bulk rate.

The discussion turned the property behind the former Moncrief Road and 13th Street bus stop. The bus stop was on city right-of-way. Directly behind that is a plot of land owned by Roosevelt Clark and next to that is a city tax reverted parcel. No taxes have been paid on the property (valued at $140) over the last 6 years. It was decided that the city should begin foreclosure procedure and hopefully the owner will be convinced it is in his best interest to donate the land to the city.

Assistant Chief Tony Davis reported that Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is having little success in contacting homeowners to get them to put no trespassing signs on their property. Without this permission JSO cannot arrest loiterers. Many of the owners live out of town or are banks. Of 71 homes, 5 have been contacted. A sample letter from the JSO was presented that tells homeowners that the JSO wants to talk to them about their property.
Inmates will be in the area on April 17 to clean the right-of-way and city property. Unfortunately only a few days after such clean ups the property becomes blighted again. CM Lee said this is a reason the need to be fences and security cameras. CM Lee suggested that JSO and the Mowing division work together to coordinate inmate involvement in right-of-way clean up.

Jack Shad of the Parking Division reported that requested signs were up. CM Lee asked that he report next meeting where other signs would be appropriate in the area. She also wants parking to investigate the issue on its own.

Kimberly Scott of Regulatory Compliance explained the condemnation procedure prior to 2006 changes in the law. Then, if a structure was boarded for 3 years it could be torn down. Since 2006, the dwelling must pose a safety hazard and be inspected before the condemnation process can begin. Ms. Scott said that if owners are taking no actions to comply and fix cited problems, the city should be able to foreclose and demolish if the structure has reached a point of no return. CM Love said consideration has to be taken into account in historical districts where homes of historic importance are in ill-repair. Mr. Jones of Real Estate said the city has no funds for demolition projects.

Bryan Mosier of Municipal Code Compliance discussed the different kinds of liens – Administrative, Nuisance, and Demolition. Ms. Johnston was asked to look into the effectiveness of these liens. Ms. Scott explained that if there is an Administrative lien on one piece of property it applies all properties the violator owns. This prevents the owner from being able to sell a non-violating property. Karen Bowling wants to know if this can be changed so the unaffected property can be sold. Ms. Johnston was asked to look into this matter.

Lisa Darnall of JTA showed the new ridership map with the removed stop added to it. Average ridership at that stop was 4 people.

Kirk Sherman said money can be found in the Housing Division. Grants may be in play but addresses are needed for the specific properties involved in the grant process. CM Love asked which department would be applying for the grants. CM Lee asked Mr. Sherman to investigate any funding to be found in the General Fund.

Paul Tutwiler of Northwest Community Development Corporation said he'd like to find the funds to purchase the store and the adjacent buildings on 13th and Moncrief and replace it with affordable housing there and on other nearby parcels. Deeds need to be cleaned so that they can be purchased.

Mr. Tutwiler discussed the apartments on Payne Avenue and Roosevelt Gardens near Shands Hospital. He said the density of occupancy needs to be reduced in these apartments and single-family homes need to be built to reduce crime and stabilize the neighborhood in the long term. In the meantime neighborhood cleanup days have been organized. There is also a race scheduled to be run on the S-Line to promote nutrition and health.

Environmental regulations will present a report on streamlining the portable car wash process and other regulatory matters.

The next meeting is at 9 a.m. Friday April 25 in Conference Room A. All reports for this meeting are due to Dan Macdonald by close of business on April 23. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

Package contains Minutes, sign-in sheet, audio CD.

 Mr. Jones of Real Estate said the city has no funds for demolition projects.

If there is no money available, why is there a big push for demolitions?  They did or perhaps still do have NSP 3 funding, but it is now difficult to demolish with those funds. Actually, it should have been always difficult but to make it easy, the city simply ignored proper procedures. Why is this so important to Ms Lee and Ms Scott? Is there funding coming down the pike we haven't heard about yet?

Here's a thought, rather than spend wasted money doing demolitions, why not find a way to use federal funds to build up the urban core? 

In Springfield we have Operation New Hope intending to build a 14 unit apartment building that is touted as Mixed Income.  I seem to remember hearing that the cost was somewhere around 3.5 million, though this morning I can only find 2.1 million listed in a city public statement.   In any case, that is between $150,000 & $200,000.00 plus per unit.  It is using Federal funds - NSP3.

Now look at the average cost of rehabbing one of the abandoned houses this committee is wanting to just demolish.  Try between $ 80,000.00 and $100,000.00 for a rental rehab depending upon condition. 

Perhaps rather than ending up with 14 studio or one bedroom apartments for the 2.1 to 3.5 million, we could have had those federal funds earmarked for truly helping out the urban core as intended and ended up with as many as 28 two to four bedroom houses ready to be rented for the same money. And still have a bit for those "political" costs.  Plus, what is more green than reusing what we already have?

Quote from: strider on May 07, 2014, 08:04:16 AM
In Springfield we have Operation New Hope intending to build a 14 unit apartment building that is touted as Mixed Income.  I seem to remember hearing that the cost was somewhere around 3.5 million, though this morning I can only find 2.1 million listed in a city public statement.   In any case, that is between $150,000 & $200,000.00 plus per unit.  It is using Federal funds - NSP3.

Now look at the average cost of rehabbing one of the abandoned houses this committee is wanting to just demolish.  Try between $ 80,000.00 and $100,000.00 for a rental rehab depending upon condition. 

Perhaps rather than ending up with 14 studio or one bedroom apartments for the 2.1 to 3.5 million, we could have had those federal funds earmarked for truly helping out the urban core as intended and ended up with as many as 28 two to four bedroom houses ready to be rented for the same money. And still have a bit for those "political" costs.  Plus, what is more green than reusing what we already have?

The powers that be don't understand this, which is the problem.  Until they do, there will continue to be an effort to 'remove blight' via demolition.  You explained very well, why it is wrongheaded.   

Quote from: vicupstate on May 07, 2014, 08:42:12 AM

Quote from: strider on May 07, 2014, 08:04:16 AM
In Springfield we have Operation New Hope intending to build a 14 unit apartment building that is touted as Mixed Income.  I seem to remember hearing that the cost was somewhere around 3.5 million, though this morning I can only find 2.1 million listed in a city public statement.   In any case, that is between $150,000 & $200,000.00 plus per unit.  It is using Federal funds - NSP3.

Now look at the average cost of rehabbing one of the abandoned houses this committee is wanting to just demolish.  Try between $ 80,000.00 and $100,000.00 for a rental rehab depending upon condition. 

Perhaps rather than ending up with 14 studio or one bedroom apartments for the 2.1 to 3.5 million, we could have had those federal funds earmarked for truly helping out the urban core as intended and ended up with as many as 28 two to four bedroom houses ready to be rented for the same money. And still have a bit for those "political" costs.  Plus, what is more green than reusing what we already have?

The powers that be don't understand this, which is the problem.  Until they do, there will continue to be an effort to 'remove blight' via demolition.  You explained very well, why it is wrongheaded.   

This is so unbelievable. Can't we just somehow get them to read these threads? It's all here. I have obtained a huge education via MetroJax. It should be required reading for all council members.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 07, 2014, 08:42:12 AM

Quote from: strider on May 07, 2014, 08:04:16 AM
In Springfield we have Operation New Hope intending to build a 14 unit apartment building that is touted as Mixed Income.  I seem to remember hearing that the cost was somewhere around 3.5 million, though this morning I can only find 2.1 million listed in a city public statement.   In any case, that is between $150,000 & $200,000.00 plus per unit.  It is using Federal funds - NSP3.

Now look at the average cost of rehabbing one of the abandoned houses this committee is wanting to just demolish.  Try between $ 80,000.00 and $100,000.00 for a rental rehab depending upon condition. 

Perhaps rather than ending up with 14 studio or one bedroom apartments for the 2.1 to 3.5 million, we could have had those federal funds earmarked for truly helping out the urban core as intended and ended up with as many as 28 two to four bedroom houses ready to be rented for the same money. And still have a bit for those "political" costs.  Plus, what is more green than reusing what we already have?

The powers that be don't understand this, which is the problem.  Until they do, there will continue to be an effort to 'remove blight' via demolition.  You explained very well, why it is wrongheaded.   

Part of the problem could be rigid building codes that make receiving a certificate of occupancy unachievable at low cost.  New construction has all of the stuff built in that is fairly infeasible in older construction at those costs.  In FL, to receive insurance, and possibly a CO, aren't there hurricane proofing measures that must be taken (roof tie downs, special windows, etc) and of course some of the infrastructure in the houses (wiring, ducts, etc) may not be up to modern code legally acceptable for commercially renting out?

I could picture a scenario where while it might take $80-100K for a "pioneer" to make the home generally structurally sound and cleaned up for habitation, the same standards don't apply when you want to rent it out to another family.  And then even beyond that, to receive insurance, the standards are even tougher.  So that $80-100K might turn into $150-200K per unit quite quickly.  ADA is something that has to be considered, too.  A federal program to renovate a series of homes likely has to make a few of these 2-3 story homes ADA compliant.  Adding in an elevator of "lift" in even just one home could make the whole project less feasible than a cheap new construction single building.

But generally I agree, just not sure how analogous a federal grant program is to a single house renovation for occupancy by owner.

The 80 to 100K is a realistic and doable number for the average  condemned house.  In fact, it includes the "political costs" often associated with these types of grants.  If it is sound and simply a foreclosure, for instance, you can do them for less.  An arm of our non-profit deals with real estate investors that own and are still buying hundreds of houses and they have a factory of sorts going and turn houses empty for often several years into quality rentals quickly and affordable.  Perhaps the city needs to go talk to them and get a few lessens.

For the most part, you do not have to update everything to current code.  MCCD likes to say you do, but they are wrong the vast majority of the time.  Basically, it is all based on the required repairs only (no updates) and so it is normally very easy to simply repair then update without bringing the structure fully to current code. It is even easier in the historic districts or for a landmark.  There are certainly bungalows that could be made ADA compliant, but for the most part, in a single family unit (home, duplex, etc) it is the size of one bathroom door and sometimes being able to access to place to start with. There is no code requirement to do more so unless it is made part of the grant, you do not have to do the ramps,  wheel chair cabinets, over-sized ADA compliant bathrooms and showers.  By doing single floor homes, no need for an elevator like a multifamily apartment building may require.  And if you found you needed to add a lift to a two story home, a simply chair lift can be had and installed for under 20K.  SO, if we have a free house, put in 100K and then the 20K, it is still a lot less expensive than having that new 14 unit apartment building built.

Even rehabbing historic houses is within the scope of NSP funding.  CDBG is often used for house rehabs and there are programs for home owners in place already to help with the needed repairs and updates. So, while MS Scott often likes to state that Jacksonville is not a developer nor in the remodeling business, in many ways it certainly is.  The ordinances allow for the repairing of issues just the same as it does the demolition of entire houses. The city just doesn't want to do it.

A CDC like Operation New Hope could have gotten a NSP3 grant and rehabbed 28 houses for rentals and then could just as easily turned them over to a property manager and eventually offered them for sale.  CDCC is going to do that and Metro North has done it before, though on a smaller scale than what I suggested.  I wasn't guessing at what could be done, I knew it was an option, it just isn't what some in our city government find profitable.

I asked Kevin Gay this exact question at the information meeting Operation New Hope held in Springfield a few months ago. The money they are spending to build those few new units would have rehabbed a couple dozen homes in Springfield or Eastside if anyone had the desire to make it happen. He said he hopes to do that at some point, but truly, that's what ALL the grant money should be used for. Fixing what is already there.

The blight committee at work -- here is just one fruit from its labor.


Happy Memorial Day weekend.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21571.0.html

Where is this now?  I've heard an ordinance may be introduced?

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/demovacanthousesordinance0001.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/demovacanthousesordinance0001.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/demovacanthousesordinance0002.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/demovacanthousesordinance0002.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/demovacanthousesordinance0003.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/demovacanthousesordinance0003.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/demovacanthousesordinance0004.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/demovacanthousesordinance0004.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/demovacanthousesordinance0005.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/demovacanthousesordinance0005.jpg.html)

This is so not the way to build and improve community.  Disheartening.

Three issues:

1.) property rights

2.) sustainability (and loss of affordable housing stock)

3.) historic preservation -- while it claims not to affect historic structures the last page states:

"Property owners of non-emergency condemned properties that are locally designated or listed on the National Register of Historic Places shall be notified of the OPTION to mothball their buildings and be given 60 days to respond.  The city will hold in abeyance enforcement or corrective measures until that 60 day time period expires."

All Tarpon properties are toast.  Including the properties in Springfield.

and since we know that the city cannot use federal funds to do this:

----------------------------------

2014-380

ORD Approp $1,060,040.10 ($699,757.72 from Nuisance Abatemt Liens, $123,581.63 from Interest Sanitary Assessmt, $80,556.33 from Demo Assessmt & $156,144.42 from Code Violation Fines) to the Nuisance Abatemt Lien Spec Rev Fund for Nuisance Abatemt Contracting to remove Propty Code Violations City-Wide; Auth Funds Carryover to FY 2014-2015; Request 1-Cycle Emerg Apv. (BT 14-66) (Shaw) (Req of Mayor)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 6/24/14

1. 6/10/2014 CO Introduced: R,TEU,F

Historic Springfield should be exempt from this ordinance.   A different approach should be taken: the city mothballs, the city revisits the auctions or another means of revitalizing the neighborhood.   We stand to lose over one hundred homes. This on top of the over five hundred lost since designation in 1987.

I take it that Jax's historic black neighborhoods (ex. Eastside, Durkeeville, New Town, Mixontown, etc.) will be impacted negatively the most?

Also, does the 24 months of abandonment begin with the passage of this legislation, meaning the earliest demo would occur in 2016? Or does it mean everything already empty longer than 24 months is immediately game?

All is immediately game.

When are they voting on this?

Has not been introduced yet.

This could have great impact on the downtown structures as well.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2014, 06:36:14 PM
I take it that Jax's historic black neighborhoods (ex. Eastside, Durkeeville, New Town, Mixontown, etc.) will be impacted negatively the most?

absolutely, along with downtown.

Parts of this ordinance are geared towards circumventing the protections afforded the landmarks and historic districts. Code Compliance does not like those protections and hates it when they run up against them.  Part of our fight to save the houses has always been fighting against the creative ways Code comes up with the circumvent the system and the fact that the City supports Code no matter what.  Most recently, we won Mothballing and gave the city the loss of the easy use of Federal Funds.  Now they have this ordinance.  The fight continues.

We do have to ask ourselves why.  Why does Jacksonville, a growing city, want to behave towards it's urban core and the poorest among us like it is really Detroit?  Why take house after house and spend millions doing it when streets constantly flood and sink holes appear almost daily?  We need to find the profit they are looking for to understand this and then perhaps we can stop it. 

The issues surrounding this all lead back to the void of real leadership in the Mayor's office.

Quote from: strider on June 15, 2014, 09:29:51 AM
Parts of this ordinance are geared towards circumventing the protections afforded the landmarks and historic districts. Code Compliance does not like those protections and hates it when they run up against them.  Part of our fight to save the houses has always been fighting against the creative ways Code comes up with the circumvent the system and the fact that the City supports Code no matter what.  Most recently, we won Mothballing and gave the city the loss of the easy use of Federal Funds.  Now they have this ordinance.  The fight continues.

We do have to ask ourselves why.  Why does Jacksonville, a growing city, want to behave towards it's urban core and the poorest among us like it is really Detroit?  Why take house after house and spend millions doing it when streets constantly flood and sink holes appear almost daily?  We need to find the profit they are looking for to understand this and then perhaps we can stop it. 

Theres the key word, in the last sentence: profit. Someone must have something to gain, monetarily or politically. As always, follow the money.

The proposed changes are to two parts of the Ordinance:

Section 518.111 Definitions - this adds non-historic structures that have been without electric and water and vacant/boarded for 24 months to the "Unsafe building or Unsafe structure" list. Not really sure how the City is going to be able to get this passed as the structures are not unsafe. In fact, Code Enforcement will often board a truly unsafe structure (open/vacant) and charge the owner for it.

Section 518.205(b) currently states: "Additional time period extensions beyond the initial six month boarding of a building may be approved by the Special Magistrate or Municipal Code Enforcement Board."

It is being changed to state: "Any vacant, unoccupied and non-historic building that has been boarded up, and has no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months, shall be abated by the City in accordance with the demolition requirements set forth and described in Part 3 of this Chapter."

I'm not sure the new 518.205(b) verbiage is even needed as the City currently has the ability to abate anything it deems as an unsafe structure by following the current ordinance (if they choose to do that).

Section 518.205(e) - This is new sorta...currently this paragraph is not separated into its own 'section'. They've done that by adding section (e) and added that historic structures will not be abated (which could include boarding the City currently has the right to do) for 60 days. It currently does not say (and doesn't say in the new verbiage either) what happens after the time period has expired or what happens if the owner "responds".

I think what needs to be focused on here is defining a structure as Unsafe if it has been "...boarded up and have no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months."

This is simply FALSE. Just because a structure has been boarded for 24 months and has no electricity/water does NOT mean it is UNSAFE.

All one has had to do was follow any of the conversations we have had here for years and we know that the abatement activity is demolition.  The recent stuff from the blight committee said they wanted to be able to demolish structures after just 24 months now this ordinance will allow them to do that.  In addition, as we have heard from a city council member (Redman) that they now can't demo historic houses that need it, the purpose of this ordinance is to enable them to do exactly that.  And as usual, they get to decide what needs it.

I agree sheclown.  And why it is important to focus on adding these types of structures to the 'unsafe structure' definition.  It is simply not true that a vacant/boarded home is unsafe. 

Please, Denise Lee and City Council, show me how a structurally sound vacant, secured, boarded structure is unsafe....

Surely,  the city "could/should" sell the structurally sound houses for say a $1 to someone with the stipulation that they bring it back to "code" and the house is occupied for x number of years.  That would be a win for the city as the refurbished house with an occupant would provide much needed property tax revenue as opposed to EXPENSES from tearing down a completely sound house and losing income from lost property tax revenues.   I mean  really, this isn't rocket science! 

Quote from: Buforddawg on June 15, 2014, 12:10:41 PM
Surely,  the city "could/should" sell the structurally sound houses for say a $1 to someone with the stipulation that they bring it back to "code" and the house is occupied for x number of years.  That would be a win for the city as the refurbished house with an occupant would provide much needed property tax revenue as opposed to EXPENSES from tearing down a completely sound house and losing income from lost property tax revenues.   I mean  really, this isn't rocket science! 

Sounds entirely logical, and other cities have been successful with similar programs, but that's not the way this thing reads. There's more going on here than the obvious tax flow or long-term income the City could gain from a productive, occupied structure. For some reason, they seem to want these buildings to fall into some level of abandonment, call it unrecoverable disrepair, and then have their way.

I'm baffled. Again, it would seem that it has to be monetary, or to curry favor, or to impress someone, right? Human nature only lists a finite number of motivators for what people do.

Please go to this site and sign a petition against harming the historic district of Springfield with this ordinance:

http://www.change.org/petitions/mayor-alvin-brown-vote-against-amending-section-518-111-under-property-safety-and-nuisance-abatement?share_id=QWbpPlotQT&utm_campaign=share_button_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

We still need to address the neighborhoods of Durkeeville and East Jacksonville along with the other at-risk structures in the urban core.

We still need to address the loss of properties rights.

Introduced last night. 

Do NOT be fooled.  This impacts historic structures.  It increases code's power over historic properties and removes the "unsafe" criteria. (Look to the end of the ordinance as quoted above).

And the rest of the urban core?  Could be GONE. 

2014-427
   

ORD-MC Amend Sec 518.111 (Definitions) to add New Subsec (M) to add as an Unsafe Structure those Non-Historic Bldgs that have been Boarded Up, Have No Active Water or Electric Svc for a Period Exceeding 24 Months; Amend Sec 518.205 (Boarding of Vacant Bldgs or Dwellings) to Require that such Bldgs Exceeding the 24 Month period shall be Abated by the City in Accordance with Demo Procedures of Chapt 518, Part 3. (Shaw) (Introduced by CM Crescimbeni, Lee & Jones)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 7/22/14


   

1. 6/24/2014 CO  Introduced: R,TEU,PHS

Do you know when the blight committee will meet next?

This is past the blight committee at this point and on it's way through city council. 

Introduced at City Council last night, I understand.  Plan on being at the next Council Meeting to speak out against this.

And sign the petition.  And share, share, share it.

Quote from: strider on June 25, 2014, 12:08:57 PM
This is past the blight committee at this point and on it's way through city council.

They could decide to withdraw their bill.

Kay, go ahead and call Denise Lee and see what she says about that. It had been suggested through e-mails and more and yet, it got it's first reading.  They want this and they want to circumvent the historic protections. If you listens to the Blight Committee at all, you will also know that the mayors office wanted the time period shorter than 36 months and they got it to 2 years from Ms Lee.  The big questions should be why?  Why is the ability to demolish houses this easily so important?  Why is eliminating the affordable housing stock in the urban core so important? 

Quote from: strider on June 25, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
Kay, go ahead and call Denise Lee and see what she says about that. It had been suggested through e-mails and more and yet, it got it's first reading.  They want this and they want to circumvent the historic protections. If you listens to the Blight Committee at all, you will also know that the mayors office wanted the time period shorter than 36 months and they got it to 2 years from Ms Lee.  The big questions should be why?  Why is the ability to demolish houses this easily so important?  Why is eliminating the affordable housing stock in the urban core so important? 

I agree, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no logical motivation whatsoever. The act of letting a building be properly mothballed and stand in peace for an indefinite period of time hurts no one, even the immediate neighbors. I would wager it doesn't hurt the adjacent property's resale value any more than tearing it down would.

If anyone has a clue on this, please let us know.

Quote from: IrvAdams on June 25, 2014, 08:30:04 PM

Quote from: strider on June 25, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
Kay, go ahead and call Denise Lee and see what she says about that. It had been suggested through e-mails and more and yet, it got it's first reading.  They want this and they want to circumvent the historic protections. If you listens to the Blight Committee at all, you will also know that the mayors office wanted the time period shorter than 36 months and they got it to 2 years from Ms Lee.  The big questions should be why?  Why is the ability to demolish houses this easily so important?  Why is eliminating the affordable housing stock in the urban core so important? 

I agree, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no logical motivation whatsoever. The act of letting a building be properly mothballed and stand in peace for an indefinite period of time hurts no one, even the immediate neighbors. I would wager it doesn't hurt the adjacent property's resale value any more than tearing it down would.

If anyone has a clue on this, please let us know.

Anyone.....ANYONE HAVE A CLUE???  Nope, didn't think so.  ;)

The older structures (50 plus years) which fall into a federal protection against being adversely affected by federal grants, also have a tendency to have asbestos in the building components.

Any city-wide initiative to demolish these structures will also have to take this in account -- beginning with the survey and the proper notification to EQD and others.  The city has a terrible record of complying with the environmental requirements involved in demolishing structures to ensure compliance with asbestos regulations.

Additionally Health Zone one is an EPA designated environmental justice community --

What is Environmental Justice?

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/

In other words...don't screw over the urban core by not following anti-pollution policies.

It is important to note that any structures demolished (other than single family by individuals) must go through the proper notification process to check for compliance with environmental issues (REGARDLESS OF FUNDING SOURCES). 

Here is the EPA determination letter:

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/EPAJax20001.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/EPAJax20001.jpg.html)

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/EPAJax20002.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/EPAJax20002.jpg.html)

Refer to this thread for more info:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=20391.0

According to extensive research done by Kim Pryor, the city has a history of skirting NESHAP guidelines in the past.  Should the city decide to demolish hundreds of older homes, eyes will be on them to make sure THIS TIME they are following all NESHAP requirements.

So, should the city decide to demolish these structures, it will have to meet all NESHAP regulations -- the cost of these demolitions and the proper disposal of asbestos containing materials will have to be factored into the cost of this "blight removing" strategy. 

And for what its worth, there still remains an outstanding asbestos violation against code enforcement.

Quote from: sheclown on July 10, 2014, 08:27:45 AM


Additionally Health Zone one is an EPA designated environmental justice community --


What is Environmental Justice?

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. 

Environmental Ethics - Clean and Green, JAX 2025
Environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold
Regulatory Compliance Director
2013-384 The armory for a buck a year and zero access to Hogans Creek. Legislation withdrawn. Environmental Justice Community?

  2014-427
   

ORD-MC Amend Sec 518.111 (Definitions) to add New Subsec (M) to add as an Unsafe Structure those Non-Historic Bldgs that have been Boarded Up, Have No Active Water or Electric Svc for a Period Exceeding 24 Months; Amend Sec 518.205 (Boarding of Vacant Bldgs or Dwellings) to Require that such Bldgs Exceeding the 24 Month period shall be Abated by the City in Accordance with Demo Procedures of Chapt 518, Part 3. (Shaw) (Introduced by CM Crescimbeni, Lee & Jones)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 7/22/14


   

1. 6/24/2014 CO  Introduced: R,TEU, RCDPHS (Per CP 6/25/14)

PUBLIC HEARING THIS TUESDAY NIGHT.

Please attend.

If you cannot be there, then email or sign the petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/chris-hand-vote-against-amending-section-518-111-under-property-safety-and-nuisance-abatement?share_id=QWbpPlotQT&utm_campaign=share_button_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Don't "LaVilla" the entire urban core.

Quote from: sheclown on June 14, 2014, 02:51:54 PM
Three issues:

1.) property rights

2.) sustainability (and loss of affordable housing stock)

3.) historic preservation -- while it claims not to affect historic structures the last page states:

"Property owners of non-emergency condemned properties that are locally designated or listed on the National Register of Historic Places shall be notified of the OPTION to mothball their buildings and be given 60 days to respond.  The city will hold in abeyance enforcement or corrective measures until that 60 day time period expires."

All Tarpon properties are toast.  Including the properties in Springfield.

any doubt what "corrective measures" refers to?

last night's council meeting:

http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council_7-22-14.wmv

the ordinance's public hearing begins at 3:06:53

I took particular interest in Councilman's Jones's defensive posture when addressing council.  To begin with, hard to believe he did not know it effects historic districts and landmarks when he was part of the group that wrote the ordinance.   That also begs the question, why is the summary for this ordinance so incorrect?  The summary certainly would lead anyone to believe it is only non-historic structures and yet the writers of the ordinance made sure they included the landmarks and historic structures. Were they being purposefully deceitful because they were hoping no one would notice? 

But back to Councilman Jones.  He tried to make the point that he has had folks come up to him and complain that they have been living next to abandoned houses for years, he mentioned 7 and 8 years, and they are tired of it and of how others may take advantage of those abandoned houses.  I have no doubt that it is true. However, let's take a closer look at what that really means.

Jacksonville is an entitlement city so it gets millions of Federal dollars to improve the issues in these poorer neighborhoods.  And has been getting those millions for years.  NSP1 and NSP3 brought in something in the realm of 30 million all by themselves.  Just to improve those poorer communities. 

It seems to me that if Jacksonville had been a good steward of those millions, these poorer neighborhoods would have been much improved and those abandoned houses would have been already addressed, since that is exactly the purpose of NSP funds. Instead, here we are, talking about plowing down communities rather than building them back up. 

HUD did their little audit recently and found that Jacksonville is simply incapable of  following proper procedures and insuring things were done properly.  This latest from the Blight committee seems to be doing nothing but reinforcing the HUD determinations and continuing the bad polices that continue to hurt the poorer neighborhoods rather then help them in any way. 

Very good points, Strider. The city needs to get a grip on revitalizing neighborhoods and it won't be done by demolition or by allowing abandoned houses to rot away. I am still advocating for the creation of a land bank to prepare properties for resale.

So how do we (we have no power really) make sure our City uses entitlement funds properly AND does not destroy our neighborhoods???  I wish I had just a little power to fix this....

Kay Ehas and crew are presenting to the blight committee this morning at nine -- reasons why this ordinance is a bad idea.

Head over to city hall if you can.  They have worked very hard on this important issue.

Additionally, the HPC wrote a response to this ordinance which focused on the idea that YES this DOES affect historic properties and, in fact, circumvents the protections currently offered to these historic properties.

From sources deep inside the blight committee meeting:

God save me.  Lee upended the agenda and took item 3 first, and we're still on it...more camera

Now she's got the lawyer explaining the ordinance.   Kay's gonna lose her mind

Lawyer claims doesn't affect historic.   I could just scream

Although she just said that mothball should be city wide...lawyer is making it up as she goes through this page by page

Lee just asked for mothball procedures, and she's totally winging it

Kays presentation

Lee just asked them to rewrite the ordinance and make definition of historic structure and make mothball city wide.

Just added boyer to jones subcommittee

Lawyer said 6 mo process communicating with owner before demo.  Lee asked them to look at shortening

Rigby, a private realestate guy, said 50 years is going to be hard

They WILL pass this bill, she said. (Lee)

Lee cut kay off 3 times.  Told her to hurry up repeatedly.  Lee is now allowing 15 minutes for public comment.  Saved our group for last

Several African American leaders want tear down.  Think that's going to get rid of the crime.

Celia Miller from Mania is speaking   

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/celiamiller.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/celiamiller.jpg.html)

Lee is interrupting her.  And she is fighting for her 3 minutes

She and lee got into a shouting match

"Subcommittee just lambasted Kim fir the code violations on her personal properties.   Cressimbeni heavily questioned her about psos.  They are going to come after psos and each of us personally"

--from PSOS member in attendance

The committee had a list of properties Kim owns and grilled her about them while she was trying to address the committee

From Kim;

Cresembini asked how many properties I own. Then if I acquired any from PSOS.

The properties PSOS owned were all marred with hundreds of thousands of dollars of rolling fines and approximately 50k in back taxes.  The "sale" of our donated properties garnered zero funds to PSOS, as a matter of fact we LOST money, considering with mothballed and maintained the properties at virtually our own personal expense. (We did receive volunteer hours at one property from the community, and one homeowner who donated provided funds to secure the house mothball style.) That approximate 50k in back taxes? Went to the city of Jacksonville. $50,000 back to the city!!!!! With the exception of our first donated home (lesson learned) each home's transfer required the back and current taxes to be paid and that was to the tune of $50,000 (approximate.)

When you have nothing else (blight committee) you attack individuals and behave badly as is being exemplified here.

Save the houses. Protect our communities. Act sustainably. Act rationally.

Cresembeni wants info on PSOS. Said he couldn't find any info on us.  Questions our legitimacy

Lol. A few swipes on Google would cover that.
Watch the news much?
Read the paper?
Read your email?
That's funny stuff.
A whole bunch of reaching.

Recognized 501 (c) (3) since 2010.
www.preservationsos.org

The issue boils down to folks are fighting back and offering nothing but sensibility.  That it not liked (clearly.)

The lack of citizen involvement in Jacksonville isn't the fault of the citizenry

Correct Stephen.

PSOS has no funding source.
Predominately our own checkbooks and personal time have saved these houses. THOUSANDS of dollars and THOUsANdS of hours of sacrifice and dedication from passionate folks. Passionate about saving houses.

Correct on MetroNorth. That didn't work for a few reasons, one being the dislike for a road down the middle of the court to allow for parking.

Item 3 was actually a report on the City's plan to purchase surveillance cameras for SJO and Public Works; SJO for covert surveillance of public/private spaces for crime prevention and Public Works for notorious dumping sites. The cameras are expected to cost $7K to $27K depending on their stealth (i.e., infrared vs. visible spectrum recording) and hard targeting features (i.e., able to withstand AK-47 rounds).  Notably the entire presentation focused on probable cost and deployment tactics with merely a nod to potential privacy concerns. Lacking was any discussion of data retention protocols, status of incidental recording of private personal activity, etc.  In what I'm coming to see as true JAX fashion, the impetus is to wade into controversial issues with virtually no policy consideration ahead of time.  The "hush hush" sensitivity shrouding the discussion of this plan was so thick that one Council member opined that it might be unwise to even ask about cost of the program or the size of the drug impound account that is being proposed to finance SJO's intended program of deploying 6-10 cameras at "undisclosed locations."

Oh, but really I was there to suggest that the "Demolitions Build Better Neighbors" Ordinance might be logically flawed. Can I get an Amen! Oy, I'm exhausted.

We can complain about MS Lee, but in the many years I have seen her performances, it has not changed.  Ms Lee cares only about Ms Lee, all her rhetoric aside. She performed exactly like we all should have expected.

She did not want sensible arguments against her bill and she did everything in her power to try to at least lessen any impact those arguments may have had on her fellow council members and the public.  One of her tactics was indeed the interruptions and the long, drawn out comments.

Ms Lee emphatically stated that there will be demolitions and that this bill will be passed.  I suspect she has that confidence because the Mayor's office is for this 100%. We need to be asking why the Mayor wants this and who will profit from it.

It was obvious from the personal attack on Ms Pryor that there was a concerted effort on the part of someone to try to make sure PSOS was discredited. Mr Crescimbeni was obviously trying to confirm or prove false information provided to him by someone.  It would indeed be interesting to know who fed the councilman that info.  It would not surprise me if it had been the Mayor's office.

While Ms Lee did not allow the time to have Mr Teal give his presentation, from the agenda items, his intent was to discuss definitions, conflicts with historic mothballing ordinance, conflict with state statues concerning property rights and possible solutions to avoid legal challenges.  It sounds to me that this ordinance as currently presented is not legally enforceable. It will be interesting to see the "solutions" Mr. Teal comes up with.

Mr. Brown made the statement that he sees no difference between a blighted non-historic house and a historic one.  This is the first public indication that this committee or at least some on it, all their denials aside, knew they were indeed including Landmarks and Historic Districts. We know MCC certainly would be for it and Ms Lee is a strong supporter and friend of Ms Scott, who we also know believes in demolition as the best solution.

I do want to state that one of the newer SPAR board members informed me that SPAR did indeed send out an official statement saying that the organization did not support this ordinance.  I will temper that with the fact that I know a few of the board members do indeed support demolitions as a solution to these kinds of issues and so I suspect the Council is getting a few mixed messages from SPAR.

Overall, Kay's presentation went well - past the Lee issue.  I would like to say that many here on MJ gave input for the presentation and Kay did great presenting it - even though she was a bit nervous about it. Once she got started, she was really into it, even with Ms Lees extreme rudeness.  I know that some, like Ms Boyer and Mr Love, certainly got it and so I for one have some hope it made enough of an impact that a few council members will question this ordinance and the wisdom of demolishing the housing stock in the older urban and early suburban areas. 

But it will not stop it if I am right that the Mayor wants it and wants it enough to expend political capital to get it.  There is indeed a long road ahead of us if we are to change the rhetoric from this Mayor's office to one of actually helping communities rather than destroying them.

Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2014, 12:10:17 PM
So Crescimbini hasn't filed for re election in 2015.

Denise is term limited out.

Jones is Term Limited out

Reginald Brown is running for re election.

Quote
City Council District 10   Reginald Brown ( Active- Filed)   DEM   $8,000.00      
City Council District 10   Patricia Gee-Jones ( Active- Filed)   DEM   $299.00
City Council District 10   Celestine Mills ( Active- Filed)   DEM   

Might be time to find out the positions of Patricia Gee Jones and Celestine Mills, and if they are more in line with sensible policy, Im sure that they would appreciate a campaign donation.      

The election is in May of 2015.  Kay how long after the election until the new council would take its seat?  isn't it like 60 days?

Its August now, so in 8 months the people driving this will not be in office.

Sounds like its time for an injunction until the feds can sort this out.

New Council is effective July 1, 2015.  I believe Crescimbeni was asking Kim questions to give her the opportunity to put the facts and truth out there to counter balance what Brown was saying. 

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 07:46:30 AM

New Councas is effective July 1, 2015.  I believe Crescimbeni was asking Kim questions to give her the opportunity to put the facts and truth out there to counter balance what Brown was saying.

Kay, you are wrong about Cresembeni. If that's what he was doing he would not have asked me how many properties I owned. And when I asked him why he was asking he would not have said "this is how this works - I ask the questions, you answer."  I believe he along with Brown were trying to discredit me, what I was saying, as well as my organization (PSOS). The way Brown and Cresembeni treated me yesterday was unprofessional, unethical, and inappropriate.

The Historic Preservation Commission composed and sent this email to the city council.  In its five pages are one thoughtful argument after another against the wholesale demolitions which the city intends to execute with this new ordinance.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0OhEo0Cpul2YWJJdXNIaFZPTFk/edit

I am very grateful to the commission for taking such a strong and thoughtful position against demolition.

The callous, wholsale destruction of housing stock has not worked anywhere else, so why is Jacksonville any different?

(https://heckeranddecker.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/detroit.jpg)

What's really perplexing is that the same thing happened in Jax already. Mixontown and La Villa aren't any more revitalized decades later.

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 26, 2014, 08:21:39 AM

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 07:46:30 AM

New Councas is effective July 1, 2015.  I believe Crescimbeni was asking Kim questions to give her the opportunity to put the facts and truth out there to counter balance what Brown was saying.

Kay, you are wrong about Cresembeni. If that's what he was doing he would not have asked me how many properties I owned. And when I asked him why he was asking he would not have said "this is how this works - I ask the questions, you answer."  I believe he along with Brown were trying to discredit me, what I was saying, as well as my organization (PSOS). The way Brown and Cresembeni treated me yesterday was unprofessional, unethical, and inappropriate.

Kim,  I've know John for quite a while.  How can you be sure you aren't wrong?  You and I are going to disagree on his intent obviously.  I to agree that Brown was way out of line.

Quote from: fieldafm on July 26, 2014, 10:34:01 AM
The callous, wholsale destruction of housing stock has not worked anywhere else, so why is Jacksonville any different?

(https://heckeranddecker.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/detroit.jpg)

What's really perplexing is that the same thing happened in Jax already. Mixontown and La Villa aren't any more revitalized decades later.

Field:  What is this a photo of? 

What was CM Lee's response to economic statistics in Kay's presentation?

She appeared to totally disregard the presentation.  Although she did seem to take offense to the data showing all the demolitions and vacant parcels are in Districts 7, 8, and 9 as if it was calling out those districts instead of understanding the data speaks for itself. 

Others attending may have seen it differently.

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 12:16:32 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on July 26, 2014, 10:34:01 AM
The callous, wholsale destruction of housing stock has not worked anywhere else, so why is Jacksonville any different?

(https://heckeranddecker.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/detroit.jpg)

What's really perplexing is that the same thing happened in Jax already. Mixontown and La Villa aren't any more revitalized decades later.

Field:  What is this a photo of?

Detroit. It's in the file name.

QuoteAnti-crime activists oppose preservationists in home-demolition debate

By Steve Patterson Fri, Jul 25, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

Activists waited in line at Jacksonville City Hall Friday to argue for and against controversial legislation that would require demolition of most boarded-up houses lacking utilities.

Three hours of debate by residents and City Council members ended without a consensus, and highlighted divisions that could keep the legislation (2014-427) unsettled until it can be rewritten to win more support.

"It's going to take a while, Ms. Lee. It's not going to happen in a month or so," Councilman Warren Jones told Denise Lee, who chairs a council committee on neighborhood blight. Lee had championed the bill as part of a set of steps to curb street-corner loitering and drug-dealing, whose effect Lee described as "human blight."

Lee said it's evident changes are needed in the bill, which applies to buildings boarded up for two years. But she insisted the aim was worthwhile.

"I am not going to fool you. We are going to get the legislation through, because it needs to be done," she told a critic, Key Ehas, who touted steps other communities had taken to revitalize neighborhoods with little use of demolition.

Ehas told the committee that out of 949 properties demolished since 2006, 88 percent of the lots were still vacant and had generally lowered property values.

The criticism echoed warnings that the city's Historic Preservation Commission delivered in an email.

"The proposed ordinance, rather than promoting an economic revitalization, would instead promote the bulldozing of buildings," commission Chair Jennifer Mansfield wrote, adding: "The commission believes that rehabilitation is a better tool than demolition for the revitalization of neighborhoods."

Mansfield said the bill "significantly threatens Jacksonville's historic resources." He noted that City Hall, the 1900s-vintage St. James Building that was a long-closed department store before the city bought it, would have been required to be demolished if the bill had been in effect 25 years ago.

But Lloyd Washington, a longtime neighborhood leader in Grand Park, told the committee he supports the bill as is. He said he shares some concerns about effects on historic buildings, but said people in areas terrorized by drug crime and violence need some relief, even if that means leveling vacant buildings used as drug dens.

A series of people who live or have businesses in neighborhoods targeted recently by the Sheriff's Office Operation Ceasefire anti-crime push made similar arguments, while several people involved with preservation efforts in Springfield and Durkeeville expressed concerns about the bill.

"We are indeed talking about two different communities," said Jones, who added the legislation will be talked through further in a subcommittee he chairs.

Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-07-25/story/anti-crime-activists-oppose-preservationists-home-demolition-debate

Was an example offered up to where a community has bulldozed most of its abandoned buildings to reduce crime?  Detroit has been doing this for decades. Jax has as well. Neighborhoods like Durkeeville have already lost over 50% of their population since 1950.  Others like LaVilla and Sugar Hill, don't even exist anymore. The crime rates are still horrible because one is just as exposed to crime in an abandoned overgrown lot as they are in an unmothballed vacant structure. If you want to get rid of crime, you find ways to create economic opportunity for residents. Demolition for the sake of being vacant doesn't do that.  It seems like our government has failed these urban core communities for so long that people are now really reaching for straws to reduce crime........even if the theories proposed have largely already been proven to be failures.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 26, 2014, 06:19:24 PM
Was an example offered up to where a community has bulldozed most of its abandoned buildings to reduce crime?  Detroit has been doing this for decades. Jax has as well. Neighborhoods like Durkeeville have already lost over 50% of their population since 1950.  Others like LaVilla and Sugar Hill, don't even exist anymore. The crime rates are still horrible because one is just as exposed to crime in an abandoned overgrown lot as they are in an unmothballed vacant structure. If you want to get rid of crime, you find ways to create economic opportunity for residents. Demolition for the sake of being vacant doesn't do that.  It seems like our government has failed these urban core communities for so long that people are now really reaching for straws to reduce crime........even if the theories proposed have largely already been proven to be failures.

Your conclusion is exactly where Lee, Jones and some of the residents are today.  The committee does not appear to be taking a data-driven, researched approach.

And I made the point that demolishing structures has not led to neighborhood revitalization or crime reduction.  Seems the two initiatives are cameras and increased demolition. 

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 12:16:32 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on July 26, 2014, 10:34:01 AM
The callous, wholsale destruction of housing stock has not worked anywhere else, so why is Jacksonville any different?

(https://heckeranddecker.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/detroit.jpg)

What's really perplexing is that the same thing happened in Jax already. Mixontown and La Villa aren't any more revitalized decades later.

Field:  What is this a photo of?

Detroit

What's really sad is that the same thing happened in Councilman Jones' district nearly 15 years ago, and crime is still rampant.  You don't need to go as far as Detroit to see this policy's failure. It's happened in Jacksonville over the last three decades.

Demolishing neighborhoods quite simply does not work. It hasn't led to a reduction in crime, nor has it led to 'revitilazation'. These neighborhoods have actually become less valuable and violent crime has increased as a result of these policies.

This is the very medical condition called 'insanity'. 

Insanity it is. Especially, when we have the economic and visual data to see the failure of such strategies all around us. These council districts are a mess and they don't have to be if we could find a way to apply common sense and logic to resolving the true issues.

I know some in the community want to see buildings demolished but what happens after that?  What's the plan to stabilize and enhance economic development opportunity in these long struggling neighborhoods.  It really gets tiring to see Jax leaders spend so much time considering and seriously debating policies that have a high failure rate in this country.

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/FAaGSzHLL8c?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/hurston2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/hurston2.jpg.html)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18092.0.html

and this from Thelakelander:

Unfortunately, the street scene that James Weldon Johnson, Philip Randolph, Zora Neale Hurston, Eartha White, Ma Rainey and others enjoyed a century ago has been erased over the last seven decades. In my quest to utilize Metro Jacksonville to expose local history that may have been considered too dark, ethnically diverse and not architecturally significant enough for many historians of Jacksonville's past to consider researching, I present Davis Street.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-nov-ghost-of-jacksonville-davis-street#.U9UCjLGQ7wo


(now there is a marker on an empty lot)

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 12:14:14 PM

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 26, 2014, 08:21:39 AM

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 07:46:30 AM

New Councas is effective July 1, 2015.  I believe Crescimbeni was asking Kim questions to give her the opportunity to put the facts and truth out there to counter balance what Brown was saying.

Kay, you are wrong about Cresembeni. If that's what he was doing he would not have asked me how many properties I owned. And when I asked him why he was asking he would not have said "this is how this works - I ask the questions, you answer."  I believe he along with Brown were trying to discredit me, what I was saying, as well as my organization (PSOS). The way Brown and Cresembeni treated me yesterday was unprofessional, unethical, and inappropriate.

Kim,  I've know John for quite a while.  How can you be sure you aren't wrong?  You and I are going to disagree on his intent obviously.  I to agree that Brown was way out of line.

Kay, neither of us can be sure of Cresembeni's intent and I'm ok with you and I agreeing to disagree. What I AM sure of is the way I felt during the attack and that what was done was way out of line. I have requested a copy of what Brown had in front of him. From what I saw of it, it was a short list...perhaps something printed from a search on the Property Appraiser's website.

It's been a long time since I was a member of MetroJacksonville. But, I have returned and I am so grateful to read the concerns regarding this Blight Committee. So many good structured homes have already been demolished. This does not make any sense.  In name only, we are called a part of the Urban Core, but, in reality, we are NOT!!! Even when our representative attends these Urban Core meetings, we have NO say so in anything or included in the Agenda. What's up with that?

My community has become the dumping ground for crimes, unacceptable unemployment of our young and our adults, drugs, predators, pedeophiles, prostitutes walking the streets day and night, slum landlords and negligent homeowners who rent to people who do not care about our community. The people in my community and the surrounding areas have expressed their lack of hope because they believe no one cares about them and the conditions of the community. I care and want the once prosperous and safe community to return to that economic and prosperous vision our parents worked so hard to accomplish.

But, our elected officials do not have a vision or insight as to what we can do to make the quality of life better for everyone, not just themselves. It's not about them. It's about US! Only a few people are not afraid to speak out, but, they are eventually blackballed or excluded out of meetings to express what they are experiencing each and every day of their life.

The gutless people keep saying, "...don't make them mad" Who the heck do they think they are? We should not be living in a community that looks like it's applying for a "Third World Application Approval."  I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of the money grabbing, control seeking, and power pumping people who come in this community, make money and leave. Please forgive my ranting. What anyone thinks of me is none of my business. I am fighting for a community I was raised in, that has literally been destroyed by these so-called leaders. Lord, help US!

Stephendare, it's been a long time since we have seen or talked with one another. I see that you, Bob, and Ennis are doing great. I am so proud of all of you. Thank you for keeping me informed on the real issues in Jacksonville. I appreciate all of you. In order for me to stop the bleeding in my community, I must return to City Hall and make some changes. Check out "The GloriVan." I am riding throughout District 9, talking to the people and the business owners, to find out what they have to say about District 9 and what they want me to do to make the quality of life better.
www.voteglorious.com

The blight committee minutes are now online for Friday's meeting.  I invite you to listen by going here:

http://www.coj.net/city-council/standing-committees/jacksonville-s-neighborhood-blight-ad-hoc-committe.aspx

The discussion on demolitions begin at 44:45

Kay's presentation begins at 1:03

Celia Miller of MANIA (Myrtle Ave Assoc) begins her comments 2:03:18 -- Celia Miller accused Lee of "cussing her on the street".  And a heated argument and lack of respect for her comments.

Kim Pryor begins her comments at 2:11:43.  Reggie Brown attacks Kim 2:15:21  Crescimbeni jumps in at 2:17:44 and brings Preservation SOS into the mix.  (and btw we ARE a 501 (C) 3).

Kim did AMAZINGLY well considering she was attacked for the "crime" of speaking her mind.  Grace under fire.

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/MJclowns.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/MJclowns.jpg.html)

Quote from: sheclown on July 28, 2014, 07:26:54 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/MJclowns.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/MJclowns.jpg.html)

Crescimbeni - Jones - Lee?

Roberts Rules of Order should be followed at ALL subcommittee meetings.  We, as voting citizens of this city, should demand this.

Denise Lee quotes:
(She referred a lot to the need for neighborhoods organizing.)
(She kept asking about people's positions, are you for or against the legislation.)

"We are gonna demalize." (Yes, she made up that word.) (When Kay said she would be happy to be part of the committee if there would be no demolitions.)
"I'm asking you all to be respectful." (She cut Kay off several times during her presentation and was very rude.)
"This is a democracy." (Not sure what her definition of this is.)
"As elected officials we are elected to represent you. . . .but at the end of the day we have to do something." In response to Mr. Love's support of preservation.
"When things look nasty, nasty people appear." Referring to Moncrief area.
"Come on you all, let's work together." (when asked why now she is beginning to time comments, coincidently she is now listening to the folks who are opposed to the blight bill.)
"We are not demonstrating." (When folks clapped after Ms. Miller spoke.)
"Does the S just stand for Springfield" (When asking about the legitimacy of PSOS.)
"There is no question that I am open and objective." (When Ms. Pryor asked Ms. Lee to ALSO stay open minded.)
"That didn't happen." Regarding a zoning change and there is no way the city can do that.)
"We appreciate your comments. This is a democracy." (After Mr. Whisler spoke.)
"The crime that is going on in Jacksonville is out of control."

Lee's closing quotes:
"The thug and thugettes are shooting at the police."
"A thug is a thug is a thug."
"There are not two issues here."
"It's about abuse by landlords and investors."
"There's nothing wrong with vouchers."
"It is totally unfair what some of these homeowners have to do."
"I know I'm gonna get in trouble when I say this."
"They just a little lighter than me."
"We are elected officials."
"Organization is the key to any kind of success."
"This will not become personal."
"Now you know I cuss, but I did not cuss them out, actually they cussed me out."
"Don't take it personal."
"It's a community problem and that is how we have to think."
"No it ain't. I know it's bad grammar but that's how we have to think."
"Let's snitch. Let's call it like it is."
"Stop the festering now."
"We are not trying to tear down, tear down."
"Legislation has always been created by the people."
"So that's what we done."
"It'll start with us and end with us."
"I'm not running for nothing so I can say this."
"Y'all don't live over here."
"We are going to pass a piece of legislation that deals with this issue."
"If you act like a terrorist you ought to be treated like one."
"This has been a good meeting."
"We are one."

"There is a difference between homeowners and some renters." Mr. Washington
"People are afraid to sit on their front porches." Mr. Washington

"Crime is the issue." - Mr. Love

"Get it away from family housing" Mr. Allen (From 1500 block west 10th when referring to neighbors from Prisoners of Christ.)

"These buildings can be torn down so you don't have to reckon with it anymore." (Lady from Moncrief area, president from business association.)

"The criminal activity is different from the housing." Renee Fields, real estate agent
"Demolishing a home isn't going to solve everything." Ms. Fields
"Tearing down a home is not going to remove the issue." Ms. Fields

"Why are you interrupting me Ms. Lee" Ms. Miller, Myrtle Ave Assoc
"I would like to finish with my three minutes." Ms. Miller
"Our organization has been with working the city for 22 years." Ms. Miller (Upset that Lee kept saying neighborhoods were disorganized.)

"The crime everyone else is talking about is not the houses fault." Kim Pryor, PSOS

"What is preservation SOS" Council member Cresembi 
"It's a 501 c 3?" Cresembi
"Is it a Florida corporation?" Cresembi

Kim explained perfectly about PSOS.

"I don't appreciate derogatory info placed on the tax roll." Ms. McCoy
"I've been cited for not cutting the limbs on my palm trees."
"When I get the files they are altered." (Referring to the sunshine law requests.)

"No records have ever been altered." Mr. Prado, MCCD (referring to Ms. McCoy's property.)
"All violations are valid on the case." Mr. Prado

"If your only tool is a hammer your only problem must be a nail." Terry Whisler, Spfld (When referring to the problems with the ordinance.)
"You need more than a hammer." Mr. Whisler
"It's reckless and frankly lazy." Mr. Whisler

"There is no difference bw a dilapidated house in one neighborhood or one in a historic neighborhood, they must be dealt with." (CM Brown or Jones after Mr. Whislers comments.)

"Please don't tear down these houses." Alison Good, Spfld
"Historic Preservation commission issued a letter this morning said don't do it." Ms. Good (She then reads a portion of the letter.)
"These neighborhoods can be revitalized." Ms. Good

"We've been targeted repeated by code enforcement." Lane Manis, Spfld
"Two difference issues here, crime and houses." Ms. Manis
If you keep tearing down houses you will not have a city any more." Ms. Manis
"We can be a destination." Ms. Manis
"I don't believe we can tear down out way out of crime." Ms. Manis

"The last thing I want to see in my neighborhood is empty lots." Joe Markusic PSOS
"I've never had a house point a gun at me or sell me drugs, it's the people in it." Mr. Markusic

Roberts Rules for Dummies is available on Amazon, it's needed.
Long unorganized meeting. Phew.

Quote from: sheclown on July 28, 2014, 08:11:27 PM
Roberts Rules of Order should be followed at ALL subcommittee meetings.  We, as voting citizens of this city, should demand this.

+1

There's a lot of discussion about defining "historic" for the purposes of this ordinance.  I suggest the city look to the Florida Building Codes "Existing Buildings" Chapter 11 section 1101 which has a definition available:

Quote
HISTORIC BUILDING.
For the purposes of this code and the referenced documents, an historic building is defined as a building or structure that is:

1. Individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places; or

2. A contributing property in a National Register of Historic Places listed district; or

3. Designated as historic property under an official municipal, county, special district or state designation, law,
ordinance or resolution either individually or as a contributing property in a district; or

4. Determined eligible by the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing property in a district

http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources/2010Florida/ExistingBuilding/PDFs/Chapter%2011%20-%20Historic%20Buildings.pdf

^Thanks for sharing.  It seems that #4 applies best for neighborhoods that aren't official historic districts.

Correct --  it also involves some investigation.

Homes 50 years or older would need to be reviewed by the historic planning department and perhaps the state historic department to determine if they are, indeed, eligible BEFORE released for demolition. 

It can't be anything done quickly, or without hiring additional historic planners, to insure significant structures that are not presently landmarked are not forever lost.

If a mothballed structure is not "unsafe", then it must be deemed safe.

So, why isn't the city mothballing these structures, at least the ones over 50 years?  Making them safe? And preserving the city's housing assets?

Why aren't the property owners mothballing them?  Are there city funds set aside to mothball historic structures?  If not, where would the money come from?

When you ask where the money to mothball comes from, should you not also be asking where the money to demo comes from?  In addition, it should not be just Historic structures, it should be an option available to all of Jacksonville.

The up front cost to Mothball is less than to properly demolish a house.  Then add back in the fact that a house will then remain on the tax rolls and eventually be lived in again and the savings between a basic demolition with the requirement of maintaining the empty lot and eventually giving it away or having a house lived in and property taxes paid plus the tax income from rehabbing it and the savings to the city and the community becomes sizable.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on August 03, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
Why aren't the property owners mothballing them?  Are there city funds set aside to mothball historic structures?  If not, where would the money come from?

The same place the money to demolish them comes from. The question isn't whether we're going to spend money, that's going to happen either way. The question is minimizing the negative impact for the rest of us who don't want to live in an urban wasteland.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 03, 2014, 03:08:54 PM

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on August 03, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
Why aren't the property owners mothballing them?  Are there city funds set aside to mothball historic structures?  If not, where would the money come from?

The same place the money to demolish them comes from. The question isn't whether we're going to spend money, that's going to happen either way. The question is minimizing the negative impact for the rest of us who don't want to live in an urban wasteland.

AMEN Chris, AMEN!!

Today's drama at the blight committee meeting resolves around the mayor who scheduled a cleanup without going through the blight committee

"Now cressembeni is asking if solid waste or public works is involved.  Cress doesnt know if its gross incompetence or intentional.  He's grilling jeff foster.  Foster is in trouble for not telling."

"The committee is stating that they are now in a position of publically stating the entire city staff is colluding against the council members"

"All the council members are mad and think it was intentional.  They are promising an investigation into how long city staff has known."

"Lee says she prayed all last night on this, and she can't tell us how hurt she  is.  "This is just not right"  "seems like the mayor would be talking to us"

Let's see, the same council members who treat their constituents there to speak at the meeting like trash are complaining because the Mayor's office dissed them? This is the first thing the Mayor's office has done lately that I liked.

Quote from: strider on August 06, 2014, 01:32:35 PM
Let's see, the same council members who treat their constituents there to speak at the meeting like trash are complaining because the Mayor's office dissed them? This is the first thing the Mayor's office has done lately that I liked.

Maybe lee was praying to the wrong power as it seems Karma came back around there a bit...

A cleanup of what? Are we talking about maintaining ROW, picking up trash, etc. or something else?

QuoteThe Mayor's Neighborhood Cleanup is this Friday, August 8, at J.P. Small Park, 1707 Myrtle Avenue. I would like to give you more information about the event.

The cleanup will consist of a sweep of the neighborhood near the park. Participants will meet at and return to the park following the cleanup. A contractor will mow rights-of-way and targeted medians. 



Please arrive at J. P. Small Park by 8 a.m. to sign in, receive supplies and additional instructions. Mayor Brown will welcome each of you and then, you will head to your assigned target area where site captains will lead three teams in the cleanup. You should be back at the park around 11.



Disposable gloves, litter bags and safety vests will be supplied. Everyone is asked to wear closed toe shoes and a hat as well as use sun protection. Water will be available at check-in. Lunch will be provided after the cleanup. You are also invited to have some fun at the Party in the Park and play a game of kickball.

I'm confused. What's the problem with this event? Just asking, is the blight committee's approval needed for special clean up events at J.P. Small Park?

The Rising Tides (YP group of the St Johns Riverkeeper) along with the Jacksonville Jaycees and The Real McCoys conducts twice a month cleanups at McCoys Creek.  In less than two years, almost two TONS of trash have been removed from the creek... including things like boats, bikes, vending machines, multiple dumptruck loads of tires and even the leftover refuse from FDOT.

http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/events/rising-tides-mccoys-creek-cleanup-summertime-special--1/ (http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/events/rising-tides-mccoys-creek-cleanup-summertime-special--1/)

The Blight Committee should try bulldozing less homes, roll up their freaking sleeves and join us.  No Mayor or City Council approval required... nor wanted.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
I'm confused. What's the problem with this event? Just asking, is the blight committee's approval needed for special clean up events at J.P. Small Park?

No. It's not. In a sense, council already approved the budget for this last year I bet.
I think this event is an annual beautification project which the mayor promotes, encouraging city employees to participate.  Not a darn thing to do with OB Committee. They're just mad they didn't think of it first, maybe?
But hey, if just 1 member of the committee shows up for this and gets grubby with the rest of them, PLEASE get a picture!

On another note, I'm very curious going forward to know if this committee tries to interfere with the KJB office and general citizen volunteer cleanup efforts.

Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on August 08, 2014, 09:19:44 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
I'm confused. What's the problem with this event? Just asking, is the blight committee's approval needed for special clean up events at J.P. Small Park?

No. It's not. In a sense, council already approved the budget for this last year I bet.
I think this event is an annual beautification project which the mayor promotes, encouraging city employees to participate.  Not a darn thing to do with OB Committee. They're just mad they didn't think of it first, maybe?
But hey, if just 1 member of the committee shows up for this and gets grubby with the rest of them, PLEASE get a picture!

On another note, I'm very curious going forward to know if this committee tries to interfere with the KJB office and general citizen volunteer cleanup efforts.

I don't understand how the members of the committee constantly complains that neighborhoods are bad and no one wants to help, but they get upset because someone had a cleanup without their permission... It's almost as if they want it to stay nasty for some reason. I am baffled at how much trash fieldafm said they pulled out of that creek. It should definitely be somewhat of a top want from the city and should never receive negative criticism from any committee... If anything these groups volunteering their time deserve more support and credit than they are receiving. Just their responses don't make any sense to me...

Quote from: AuditoreEnterprise on August 08, 2014, 01:30:31 PM

Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on August 08, 2014, 09:19:44 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
I'm confused. What's the problem with this event? Just asking, is the blight committee's approval needed for special clean up events at J.P. Small Park?

No. It's not. In a sense, council already approved the budget for this last year I bet.
I think this event is an annual beautification project which the mayor promotes, encouraging city employees to participate.  Not a darn thing to do with OB Committee. They're just mad they didn't think of it first, maybe?
But hey, if just 1 member of the committee shows up for this and gets grubby with the rest of them, PLEASE get a picture!

On another note, I'm very curious going forward to know if this committee tries to interfere with the KJB office and general citizen volunteer cleanup efforts.

I don't understand how the members of the committee constantly complains that neighborhoods are bad and no one wants to help, but they get upset because someone had a cleanup without their permission... It's almost as if they want it to stay nasty for some reason. I am baffled at how much trash fieldafm said they pulled out of that creek. It should definitely be somewhat of a top want from the city and should never receive negative criticism from any committee... If anything these groups volunteering their time deserve more support and credit than they are receiving. Just their responses don't make any sense to me...

Part of the problem is that the cleanup conflicted with a special budget meeting so Council members couldn't share the photo op.

Quote from: fieldafm on August 07, 2014, 02:50:33 PM
The Rising Tides (YP group of the St Johns Riverkeeper) along with the Jacksonville Jaycees and The Real McCoys conducts twice a month cleanups at McCoys Creek.  In less than two years, almost two TONS of trash have been removed from the creek... including things like boats, bikes, vending machines, multiple dumptruck loads of tires and even the leftover refuse from FDOT.

http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/events/rising-tides-mccoys-creek-cleanup-summertime-special--1/ (http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/events/rising-tides-mccoys-creek-cleanup-summertime-special--1/)

The Blight Committee should try bulldozing less homes, roll up their freaking sleeves and join us.  No Mayor or City Council approval required... nor wanted.

+1 Very Positive.

Quote from: Cliffs_Daughter on August 08, 2014, 09:19:44 AM


On another note, I'm very curious going forward to know if this committee tries to interfere with the KJB office and general citizen volunteer cleanup efforts.

Great point.

on facebook this morn:

(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/mayoratdurkeeville.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/mayoratdurkeeville.jpg.html)

this begs the question "who loves Durkeeville the most?"

Looking at the height of the grass on COJ ROW in that image.......neither.

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 28, 2014, 09:24:36 AM

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 12:14:14 PM

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 26, 2014, 08:21:39 AM

Quote from: Kay on July 26, 2014, 07:46:30 AM

New Councas is effective July 1, 2015.  I believe Crescimbeni was asking Kim questions to give her the opportunity to put the facts and truth out there to counter balance what Brown was saying.

Kay, you are wrong about Cresembeni. If that's what he was doing he would not have asked me how many properties I owned. And when I asked him why he was asking he would not have said "this is how this works - I ask the questions, you answer."  I believe he along with Brown were trying to discredit me, what I was saying, as well as my organization (PSOS). The way Brown and Cresembeni treated me yesterday was unprofessional, unethical, and inappropriate.

Kim,  I've know John for quite a while.  How can you be sure you aren't wrong?  You and I are going to disagree on his intent obviously.  I to agree that Brown was way out of line.

Kay, neither of us can be sure of Cresembeni's intent and I'm ok with you and I agreeing to disagree. What I AM sure of is the way I felt during the attack and that what was done was way out of line. I have requested a copy of what Brown had in front of him. From what I saw of it, it was a short list...perhaps something printed from a search on the Property Appraiser's website.

Kim, are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

http://www.youtube.com/v/FDC4Keawv6U?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0

Live blogging from deep inside the blight committee

Neighborhood/Human Blight committee.  Jason Teal first speaker about 2014-427.  Legislation that says houses that are boarded and w/o utilities for 24mo SHALL be torn down

Concern he has about legislation is that if local gov is going to abate they must use lightest touch possible. 

Questioning the conflict between 427 and mothball ordinance

Jason teal:

Says he's looking at this as equal protection issue.   Fundamental issue with those in and out of historic district.

Still Jason:

Handed out sheet taken from FL 163.340.  Suggests using one of the choices there that identify the ways a property is a drag on the neighborhood, instead of just boarded w/o utilities.

Unsanitary or unsafe; deterioration.  higher rate of: vacancy rate; crime; fire or emergency calls; number of building code violations; tax or special assessment delinquency.

"Must tie it to the evil you're trying to combat"

Assigned to subcommittee (that met yesterday - wonder if it was a noticed meeting).  But CMs will comment now.  Jones wants to see mothball legislation and is working on defining historic.

Anderson (who was also at yesterday's meeting) Lee want it to rake less than 2 years.

Jason suggests that in section m add word blighted and create definition of word blighted.

Anderson wants to look at appeals process. Teal says process already exists: Building codes adjustment board

Teals says city is looking at changing that to show cause hearing before specisl magistrate, who's decision can be appealed to building codes adjustment board (bcab)

 Love and Cressembeni just got here so Lee is recapping. 

Bishop says we have property safety standards, what's different about this from what we already have

Teal says it adds and defintion to unsafe structures.

Bishop says someone can leave the country for 5years - board it and disconnect utilities, yet nothing structurally wrong with building.

There is a legal process to foreclosure if leins or fines aren't paid.  He emphasized that we be careful.

Also be careful about labeling neighborhood blighted. Precedent shows that hurts for a long time

Get the habitual properties out of bad owner's hand by foreclosure.   General council needs to be more aggressive

Bowling concerned about volume is going to impact the existing appeals process

JSO concerned about the challlenges of actually proving the illegal activity involves a particular place

Love says we have to be careful because sometimes a vacant lot can generate more problems than a vacant house.

Cressembeni has asked mccd for a list of properties that were torn down with pictures.  They have given him 112 from 2013.  He says they all needed tearing down  Nobody but the very brave could have refurbished them.

Cressembeni is questioning JSO Chief Ivy about appeals for seizure of personal property. Verified they
could seize real property and that an appeals process exists.

Cressembeni relating discussions at council meeting re:  citizens telling council where illegal activity happens and asking Ivy why JSO can't do anything about it. Ivy is explaining they usually seize based on spending (illegal) money when it's used to purchase car, etc.

Says they must arrest the property owner or someone tied to the property in order to seize property

They (JSO) have gotten mccd involved at the 45th St Amoco Station trying to find other ways to shut it down.

Cressembeni says need to fix these problems to free police services to handle other areas.  Ivy says he's been in position for 6 mons.  he has personally spoken to owner at 23th and Moncrief twice.  He will fix that problem but not overnight.

Lee is speaking, agrees with not calling a neighborhood blighted.

Acknowledges that soon enough high crimes becomes synonymous with the neighborhood name or street

Now moving on to Chief Ivy and surveillance cameras

Will utilize cameras in repeat crime and dumping areas.  They have chosen cameras and approval has been signed.  Expecting to have fast compliance from habitual duping.  Going to add to patrol officers responsibilities too.  Will use covert cameras for high crime areas.  Some of them already out there.  Police work has changed.  Can't just arrest everybody and expect to fix it cause the next thugs or thugettes just move in

"So we have to fix issues. Identify individuals who are the problem.  They will offer them alternative solutions.  Change how we do business.  For example they caught wind of illegal boarding houses, went out with mccd and look into 3 of them. one had 14 rooms.  Another example are the No Trespassing orders they were working on.  But they had 71 properties and only got 3 signed by owners.  So they walked the street and got businesses to allow them to put up no loitering signs.  This is working.

"Through this they got a guy with a robbery warrant yesterday.  Baby steps they are starting to work  Will always do what we can legally, to fix the problem."

Cressembeni appreciates Ivy's passion on this issue.  Cres. is questioning Ivy about the every2 week meeting with the Sheriff and every commander that covers every crime that happened in the last 2 weeks.

Ivy reports that they are somewhat pleased with operation ceasefire in the first 45 days. 

Jones reported they are still working structures 50 years and older and certificates of use issues.   They will do as quickly as possible and they will do it legally.

Quote from: sheclown on August 13, 2014, 11:14:05 AM
Assigned to subcommittee (that met yesterday - wonder if it was a noticed meeting).  But CMs will comment now.  Jones wants to see mothball legislation and is working on defining historic.

He doesn't need to work on anything... A simple word search in the statutes will lead to one reference that refers you to the building code for a definition of a historic structure.

QuoteChapter 11 - Historic Building: for the purposes of this code and the referenced documents, an historic building is defined as a building or structure that is:
1. Individually listed on the National Register of Historic places
2. A contributing property in a National Register of Historic places listed District; or
3. Designated as historic property under an official municipal, county, special district or state designation, law, ordinance or resolution either individually or as a contributing property in a district; or
4. Determined eligible by the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing property in a district.

Now that being said it is also common for nearly every state to contain the exact same chapter in their building code. Ironically they are all labeled "Historic Buildings." I would think that the people in office assigned to manage financials and write laws and such would have, at least, the know how to do a basic "find" search on our own legislation before they try and pass something off as not being clearly stated.

Original statute referencing a historic building. Keep in mind it is the only time that word is mentioned in the statutes per the search.

QuoteF.S. 553.79(18)(b)4. A Historic Building is defined in the Florida Building Code.

Next up Prado on 13th and Moncrief.  He reported the one property owner would not allow mccd in to inspect.  They said they'd move on to Special Master.  Prado says owner finally allowed inspection of store and all non-occupied properties.  They must get consent from tenants to inspect occupied.

There was a special magistrate hearing on July 22 that gave owner 30 days to fix store and 60 days on residential  They will keep following up and if he hasn't fixed everything they will ask for $250 a day rolling fines, on each of 12 chases.  Then they will move to foreclosure action.

Cress. asked Prado to confirm there are existing fines and wants to know if the existing fines could allow foreclosure.  Prado will get back to committee before the end of the day.   Maybe they can move forward with foreclosure action without waiting. 

Lee agrees and wants Prado to bring files with him in the future.  Lee has been trying to shut this property down for 25 years.  Says the owner is playing us, abusing government, abusing the system.

She asked the room to pass by the houses and confirm they need to be town down.  Lee says whatever laws we have right now aren't working.  She asked Prado to look at all similar cases and bring a report to next meeting.

Jones looked it up and sees owner is $9000 behind on back taxes.  Tax cert has been issued for 2013 and 2014.

OGC stated tax cert holder can't foreclose for 2 years.  City can foreclose and or sell with tax cert in place .

Next up:  organizing neighborhoods.

Lee says we need to spend money to organize the neighborhoods, wants it in the budget.  If these neighborhoods were organized the way their supposed to be many if the problems discussed today wouldn't exist

Cressembeni will look at this in budget meeting.   Said that current neighborhood dept is at risk due to loss of funding

Not all neighborhoods are represented on CPACs (but they could)

There are 599 neighborhood organizations, but some neighborhood has more than 1 organization.   Lee asked that they come back next time with actual neighborhood list. Asked that there be a system in place to add and delete as they come and go.

Lee asked cressembeni to would with neighborhood dept to work on the list

Kenny Logsdon and CM Cressembeni will work to get this done

City used to reach out to the neighborhood associations every year, but funding loss has deleted that service

Anderson wants a definition of neighborhood.

Group working on how to define neighborhood organizations as opposed to civic organizations

Lee supports CDCs because tgey are required ti go in and organize neighborhoods.   These neighborhoods aren't getting what they deserve.   People should be required to live in the neighborhoods they represent

Next up seeking to down zone 45th St Amoco Station to commetcial office from CCG1.  Owner came in and said he'd work with blight committee and planning to make corrections on his property.   Since he hadn't Lee introduced legislation to down zone property.

This diwnzone would eliminate the convience store that us presentky there.  Cressembeni asked if use could be grandfathered.  Answer is yes, but will lose it if use stops for one year.

Cressembeni wants to change so once new zoning is adopted new use takes effect in 90 days.  Lawers will check

Jones says it can't be done

Lee asked Chief Ivy for stats for the  blocks around this business.

Now watching news story about 6 year old who was shot

The mother didn't want to say anything.   Lee says if you don't say anything you're part of the problem.

Public comment time

1st speaker says committee speaks of vacant houses or overgrown lots, but people in houses are harboring unruly people.  There have been 2 or 3 shootings in the year she's lived there.

Chief Ivy asked people to call and report loud music or other disturbing activity so they can respond

Citizen is fed up

Citizen asked if tax certificates had been sold by the tax collector, could the city demolish the structure(s)?  The answer is yes.  It was recommended that people not buy tax certificates on property that may be demolished.p

Citizen asked if tax certificates had been sold by the tax collector, could the city demolish the structure(s)?  The answer is yes.  It was recommended that people not buy tax certificates on property that may be demolished.

Lee wants an update from the CDCs on organizing neighborhoods

Jim Robinson, public works, talked about throughfare plan presentation next meeting.  List provided by council members and citizens.  Will show who's responsible and how they're going to fill in gaps. Will have maps, too.  Lee said now that the sheriff's office is taking over illegal dumping so now public works xan soend more on mowing

Kim Scott spoke about foreclosures.  Activity stopped in 2004 because there were no nonprofits to hand the property over to.  There needs to be a plan for what to do after foreclosure before city starts foreclosing again.  Wants to present what other cities are doing.   Including tearing down entire blocks.

Lee accepted her offer to make a presentation in 2 weeks.  Presentation will be with mccd, housing and community development and real estate.

Jones's committee is also looking at what to do with foreclosured properties

Jones is going to ride around with chief ivy.  Anderson thanked lee for her courage and agreed to ride around with her. 

Lee thanked other council people and admin for coming together to work on this citywide problem

Proposed Agenda
Stand Up for Your Neighborhoods
August 27, 2014
10 a.m.
Don Davis Room

Committee: E Denise Lee, Chair; Council Member Jim Love; Council Member Bill Gulliford; Council Member John Crescimbeni, Council Member Bill Bishop, Council Member Greg Anderson, and Council Member Warren Jones.

Call to order
Approve minutes from August 13 meeting

Old Business:
Report on policy regarding structures that are 50 years or older – CM Warren Jones
Discussion of information presented by Jason Teal at Aug. 13 meeting
Review of benefits of foreclosure vs. demolition
Subcommittee on business permitting and licensing (Certificate of Use) – Chair CM Warren Jones
Draft legislation from Paige Johnston
Update on cameras and Operation Cease Fire –Pat Ivey, JSO
Report on the number of neighborhoods that have been organized over the last 3 years – Kenny Logsdon
Database of neighborhoods and status of clarifying classification between neighborhoods and organizations.
45th Street Amoco Station PUD – Cherry Shaw
Can the grandfather clause in part 7 be amended in this case?
Status of proposed legislation to draft rezoning ordinance to another category.
Crime statistics for 45th Street and Avenue B – Pat Ivey.
Report on Payne Street near 13th Street and Moncrief Road – Paul Tutwiler, NWJCDC
Status report on 13th and Moncrief – Robert Prado
Report on legal steps that are being taken on this property and report on status of other such properties.
New Business

Public Comment
   30 minutes will be allotted at end of meeting.

Adjourn

Who was able to attend?  Summary?

The revamped bill has passed. Most vacant buildings outside of the few designated historic districts in town can be torn down with ease.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-01-27/story/jacksonville-council-passes-bill-requiring-demolition-blighted-homes

The largest negative impact will be the Northwest section of the city. Unfortunately, there's still no realistic plan in place for actual redevelopment and economic revitalization neighborhoods.

I would rather look at empty lots than falling down buildings, overgrown with vines.

^That's what they say in Detroit too. They also don't have a viable plan to actually deal with economic revitalization in their distressed communities either.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-w3bCD9B/0/L/P1700824-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Detroit-2014/i-5kNkFhD/0/L/P1700842-L.jpg)

Locally, you can see this now in what used to be the neighborhood of Sugar Hill. It's a pure mess of trash filled overgrown vacant lots in what used to be one of the most economically viable historic African-American neighborhoods in the city. Pretty much identical to the Detroit images above.  Since none of the older black neighborhoods are considered historic districts, despite  being just as old and impressive as the Springfields, Riversides, etc., we're going to see structurally sound places like this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Durkeeville-2014/i-Chb9Dgn/0/L/P1720182-L.jpg)
A vacant residence in Durkeeville

end up like this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-6NGwSqh/0/L/DSCF3102-L.jpg)
1436 Eaverson Street in Durkeeville

To be honest, I'd rather see taxpayers invest in a third option. One that focuses on redeveloping structurally sound vacant structures for use as affordable housing, job creation, economic opportunity for these neighborhoods. There's examples of strategies across the country that may be applicable for us. We and our political leaders just have to advance to the point where we have more pride in our community and our ability to turn things around, if that's truly the goal.

This is a thread that has the revamped bill posted.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,22328.msg401584.html#msg401584

While the original bill made a point of insuring they could just as easily take historic structures as any other, at least this version keeps the few protections this city allows it's historic building stock to remain in tack.

What is ironic is that this bill uses definitions that will primarily apply and do damage to the very less cared about neighborhoods that brings millions of Federal dollars to Jacksonville every single year. Those millions are really supposed to be used to revitalize those neighborhoods not mow them down. What is truly sad is that these communities probably could be saved and revitalized for the same money if not even less than the city will spent to demolish them.

This bill also gives the option of taking and donating the property to both non-profits and for profit entities so that that get rehabbed and put back to use rather than just demolition.  However, regardless of the rhetoric from even good council members like Lori Boyer, as long as deals have been  made and people like Kimberly Scott and Denise Lee have their way, demolition will be the far preferred and used method of dealing with what they have determined to be blight.

What I still don't get is why demolish a building if is does not pose a danger to anyone (by collapsing) and when no one wants to build a new one in its place ? Doesn't matter if it's in DT, Springfield, wherever..

Plus, having an area with lots of overgrown lots will not make it more attractive to investors....pure idiocy, really.

Quote from: strider on January 28, 2015, 07:48:02 AM
This is a thread that has the revamped bill posted.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,22328.msg401584.html#msg401584

While the original bill made a point of insuring they could just as easily take historic structures as any other, at least this version keeps the few protections this city allows it's historic building stock to remain in tack.

What is ironic is that this bill uses definitions that will primarily apply and do damage to the very less cared about neighborhoods that brings millions of Federal dollars to Jacksonville every single year. Those millions are really supposed to be used to revitalize those neighborhoods not mow them down. What is truly sad is that these communities probably could be saved and revitalized for the same money if not even less than the city will spent to demolish them.

This bill also gives the option of taking and donating the property to both non-profits and for profit entities so that that get rehabbed and put back to use rather than just demolition.  However, regardless of the rhetoric from even good council members like Lori Boyer, as long as deals have been  made and people like Kimberly Scott and Denise Lee have their way, demolition will be the far preferred and used method of dealing with what they have determined to be blight.

Thanks for the link. Looking at JaxUnicorn's post:

QuoteHistoric Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

So even though these places are +100 years old and structurally sound, because they are vacant and don't meet the full requirements set forth in this particular locally created definition of "historic structure", they can be torn down with ease?

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Urban-Issues/Elena-Flats-Reuse/i-zpZN2ht/0/L/Hostel-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Durkeeville-2014/i-nH45Gp4/0/L/P1720178-L.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Durkeeville-2014/i-nNwjN97/0/L/P1720170-L.jpg)

If so, we can put another nail in the coffin of economic revitalization potential of older unprotected Northside neighborhoods that don't have strong political representation.

Wasn't there language that provides protection for any structure overy 50 years old, in a historic district or not?

We are living in a generation where many people leases (cars, apts etc). Many of these old school homes (some with very small bedrooms etc) are in downtrodden lower income black neighborhoods. There are many instances were a deceased grandparent owned a home PAID OFF, passed it down to the kids and the were unable to maintain very cheap property taxes, then the home gets foreclosed; Someone may buy it for dirt cheap, then again the home may not be occupied ever again. I saw this first hand.

Some of these homes are took over by shady land(slum)lords posing as 'real estate investors'. They lease these homes out, and they are in bad condition, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, literally air cracks between the window sills etc. The use of kerosene heaters to stay warm etc. Most of the time, what inevitably happens is an unsustainable revolving door of tenants.  I lived in a house like this on Nixon St in the North Riverside. Lake said this..

QuoteUnfortunately, there's still no realistic plan in place for actual redevelopment and economic revitalization neighborhoods.

...and that's the reality that many don't wanna face. This issue happens in poor areas all over the country. Of course not all of these older homes are a lost cause. There are cases that old razed areas that are redeveloped, like Habijax throughout the city, and recently on the Eastside with the CB Dailey Villas.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=23312.0

Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

Quote from: Kay on January 28, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

Strider is correct.  The bill does NOT protect any structure over 50 years of age.

From my post linked to earlier in this thread:

QuoteAfter my Ramifications and Alternatives comments is a direct copy/paste from the substitute bill 2014-427, with all revisions noted (underlined for additions, strikethroughs for deletions).  I still do not understand how tearing down structurally sound buildlings just because they are vacant, boarded, have unpaid Code fines, and have no electricity for more than 24 months helps the city.

Ramifications of tearing down structurally sound buildings:

• The City must find the funds to pay for the demolition - very costly - and risk lawsuits.
• More often than not, taxes are paid via Tax Certificate sales. By removing the structure from a parcel, the City reduces the value of the property on which taxes are paid (less money for City/County).
• The City is left with a vacant lot with even MORE liens tied to the property that the owner is even less likely to maintain.
• The City must spend more money to abate the property when it becomes overgrown because the owner will not maintain it (more land to take care of too now that the structure is gone).
• The additional demolition lien makes it even harder for someone to sell the property if they wanted to do so.
• We lose homes that could potentially be used to house the homeless or low income persons.
• We unnecessarily add waste to our landfills.
• The cost to build new is WAY more than the cost to renovate an existing structure.

Alternatives:

• Utilize funds marked for demolition to make primary repairs to the property (stop water infiltration (roof) and the structure will stand for years).
• Place a lien on the property for the repairs (or maybe it can be added to the property taxes as an improvement?).
• Foreclose on the existing or the new repair lien and donate the property to a non-profit to provide housing.
• I am sure there are others...what suggestions do you have?

The criteria for demolishing a structure in this new manner is defined in Chapter 518.111, Part 1, SubPart B (Definitions), Section (m) of the definition of Unsafe.  All of the following must be true to demolish under this new law:

• Must be non-historic
• Must be blighted (they re-vamped what defines a structure as blighted as well)
• Must be vacant or unoccupied, or if occupied, occupied by transient persons
• Must be boarded up
• Must have unpaid code enforcement, nuisance, or demolition liens
• Must have had no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months

Goodbye Eastside, Durkeeville, Brentwood, Brooklyn, New Town, Mixon Town, LongBranch, Fairfield, Tallyrand, Phoenix, MidTown and all the other neighborhoods with a low socio-economic problem.  Tearing down these structures is NOT the way to rebuild communities!!!  AND it totally wastes my taxpayer dollars!

Something else to consider here is the COJ just defined a blighted area as one with a higher number of emergency medical service calls than the rest of the city.  What?!?!?!? 

Must be non historic. And number 6
Heard there are about 9000 that fall into this category. That must explain all the demos happening in Dist. 4

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on January 29, 2015, 10:04:08 AM
Goodbye Eastside, Durkeeville, Brentwood, Brooklyn, New Town, Mixon Town, LongBranch, Fairfield, Tallyrand, Phoenix, MidTown and all the other neighborhoods with a low socio-economic problem.  Tearing down these structures is NOT the way to rebuild communities!!!  AND it totally wastes my taxpayer dollars!

Yes, when I read the legislation, that was my thought. It's too bad. These neighborhoods still have most of their historic integrity in place because they have been long ignored by COJ. We can look at DT Jax and LaVilla as great examples of what happens when bad policies are put into place. I see no reason to expect anything different in these historic "but not officially historic under the listed definitions" neighborhoods.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/neighborhoods/new-springfield/p1040160.JPG)
Non-historic ready to be demolished blight in New Springfield.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Brentwood/i-tg8396N/0/L/P1340658-L.jpg)
Getting rid of this at your expense should help ease crime and bring economic prosperity to Brentwood. ;)

Quote from: strider on January 28, 2015, 03:02:16 PM

Quote from: Kay on January 28, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.
How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

Quoteor with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

Kay, as it took all but an act of congress to get MCCD to do a 106 review, I fail to see this being enforced by them in any way.  Plus, the " as determined by" only works if they get notified before the structure is taken.  The precedent has been set that the MCCD chief can call whatever they feel like an emergency and get away with it.  Even Historic designated structures. I also fear hearing "it was not on any list..." and to go with the last comment, yes a survey of what is and what is not eligible is what may be needed but until there is one....

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2015, 05:41:19 PM
^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

As much as that may be what is needed, the funding will probably never get made available, at least under current leadership. I imagine even if a survey was done, how do you find the funding to get the designation and get the additional staff needed to handle more districts? It ends up being a pretty expensive proposition. At least one attempt at a new district was also voted down by the residents recently.  And I think in the last few years, the Historic department has had it's head on the budget cut block more than once.

We need better leadership. Under our current leadership, the few that care can't really stop the demolition train heading the older communities' way.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2015, 05:41:19 PM
^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

Yes, the first step is surveying the properties.  Staff doesn't have time so would need money for consultant to do it or more staff.
I think there are more areas surveyed than we are aware of.  A survey determines whether it is historic or not.  Of course, then getting a district designated requires a majority vote of the property owners.  Not sure if Council can do it without a vote of property owners.

I hear you Joe and share your concern.  Hoping the legislation will help.  We'll need to be vigilant.  Perhaps we ask Jones or Boyer
how they see it working and if it needs more clarity.

The state can determine whether to designate an area a national register district and that does not need Council or property owner approval.

Quote from: Kay on January 29, 2015, 05:11:59 PM

Quote from: strider on January 28, 2015, 03:02:16 PM

Quote from: Kay on January 28, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.
How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee. 

Yup. Hopefully this will be demonstrated as intended.

Quote from: Bill Hoff on January 30, 2015, 07:47:52 AM
Yup. Hopefully this will be demonstrated as intended.

It won't.  Period.  The news story also stated Warren Jones hopes the city will begin to see these homes begin being demolished as soon as 5 to 6 months.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/2015/01/28/city-fights-blight-with-new-legistation/22487467/ (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/2015/01/28/city-fights-blight-with-new-legistation/22487467/)

Quote from: Kay on January 29, 2015, 05:11:59 PM

Quote from: strider on January 28, 2015, 03:02:16 PM

Quote from: Kay on January 28, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.
How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

That's not what it says though. For that to be the case, where's the part requiring the planning department to review it? The actual language only protects properties 50 years old that have already been determined to be eligible for listing. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring that the city review each property for eligibility prior to demolition. This is what we refer to as an illusory promise...

People always wanna talk about Detroit, when it comes to tearing down neglected structures; The homeless breaking in places to stay warm causing fires, and arson like below (first link) is why Detroit did it. The people in these neighborhoods (second link) are far from sad that these eyesores with no hope are being torn down. Keep in mind, as long as property is historical or is being MAINTAINED it will NOT come down, I have no problem with that bill at all. 

http://www.news4jax.com/news/teen-charged-with-setting-4-house-fires/30987184
http://www.news4jax.com/news/new-law-could-help-clean-up-blight-in-jacksonville/30974450

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 30, 2015, 10:31:16 AM

Quote from: Kay on January 29, 2015, 05:11:59 PM

Quote from: strider on January 28, 2015, 03:02:16 PM

Quote from: Kay on January 28, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.
How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

That's not what it says though. For that to be the case, where's the part requiring the planning department to review it? The actual language only protects properties 50 years old that have already been determined to be eligible for listing. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring that the city review each property for eligibility prior to demolition. This is what we refer to as an illusory promise...

In my opinion, it is unconstitutional for the City to demolish houses for this reason.  They must foreclose first.  The news story stated "Jones says a process will now be put in place to turn the properties over to a non-profit agency or adjoining property owner who will renovate the property or the city will demolish them."  The City cannot turn properties over that they do not own!  And I would think they cannot tear them down unless they own them either in this case.

The city is banking on that most of the owners won't litigate, which is probably true. Most people don't know their rights.

Maintain your property (city ordinance) and you'll be okay. It seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here...

Quote from: I-10east on January 30, 2015, 11:38:16 AM
Maintain your property (city ordinance) and you'll be okay. It seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here...

Given the VAST number of homes demolished within even HISTORIC neighborhoods, AND violating federal codes in the process, it is very understandable that this would be viewed skeptically to say the least.  Jaxunicorn makes some very salient points about constitutionality/ownership too.

LaVilla is proof positive that this strategy can be a miserable failure.   Given Jacksonville's history, anything that gives the city more leeway to do demolitions is scary.   

I would hope that at a minimum, there would be an ongoing inventory of the demolitions with a two year follow up, to see which ones actually get something built on them.  If nothing is actually happening after the demolition, that alone is enough to repeal it.  Perhaps a sunset provision or 'mandatory review' could be added to the ordinance before final passage.   

Quote from: I-10east on January 30, 2015, 11:38:16 AM
Maintain your property (city ordinance) and you'll be okay. It seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here...

Not entirely true... Maintain your property, be able to do whatever MCCD decides it needs, don't piss of the wrong people and maybe, just maybe, you will be alright.

Yes, too many properties are not being properly maintained.  Some of that is certainly on the owners of those properties.  Some of it is due to the horrendous way MCCD handles things and while that should not make as much difference as it does, if you are not savvy or not able to afford the repairs, you end up on a downward slide that ends with demolition. In some case within Springfield, some did not like who was renting the house and so MCCD made sure no one did when in fact, the majority of the issues the house had in the end were caused by MCCD making it all but impossible for relatively easy original repairs to be made. If the right people want what could be thousands of houses effected by this ordinance torn down, the odds are they will succeed.

Code Enforcement is not wasting any time!!!  Demolitions are coming!!!

See this thread:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23641.msg402614.html#new (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23641.msg402614.html#new)