Metro Jacksonville

Another Historic Downtown Demolition In The Works?

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Downtowns-Historic-Buildings/i-bV56DG9/0/L/P1350462-L.jpg)

The Downtown Investment Authority is considering making a portion of downtown a national historic district.  Unfortunately, if one property owner has his way, a 105-year-old building will become a vacant lot despite possibly being one of the last vestiges of a turn-of-the-century downtown rooming house district.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jan-another-historic-downtown-demolition-in-the-works

Ennis, You are so talented. Do you also have your real estate license? That is a neat building. I like the double steps. We have a surplus JEA house on the river we can sell. Palms Fish Camp- No fines but just cash that bad boy in for a million plus. Sweet Pete's II. LIke the double steps.

Excellent example of how the left hand undermines the right.  The city on one hand is trying to preserve it's historic structures but at the same time a wrong-headed code enforcement dept. is doing everything it can to tear down anything that is old/unoccupied.  The LAST thing the city needs is another vacant lot.  The building appears to be in excellent condition on the exterior. What exactly is the structural or other 'problem' with it.  Me thinks it is in Kim Scott's imagination, whatever it is.

The building appears to be on the market, what is the asking price?

Why do we keep running our mouths about how terrible this is? When are we going to get a land trust in place to secure and market these buildings into a new life? Come on Jacksonville!

Ugh...I love that building...there's another awesome one adjacent to it (corner of Duval and Newnan)....have thought about purchasing each at various times.

I agree - we have to stop the bleeding ! There has to be a solution to save this building.  I'd love to see the inside architecture !

I've always thought that this would be a great restoration effort that could bring a few more people living downtown and it's a small enough scale of a project that more people should be able to potentially do it without having to have super deep pockets.

Municipal Code Compliance can and does condemn buildings for relatively minor issues and once in their system, the edict is it must be brought to full current code.  Read their reports on these condemned houses and you will see a very vague write up that states everything is bad and everything must be done. What this does is takes a somewhat affordable repair at the time of condemnation and makes it financially unsound to repair at all.   So the building sits, the fines start and MCCD starts telling the owner he can save money by doing the demolition himself to stop the fines.

The only thing that will save this building is the landmark designation.  That changes everything from what MCCD can do, what the owner can do and what repairs must be done to the building.  Few in this city, including within the building department, fully understand the Historic Building Codes (found within the Existing Building Codes) but they give great latitudes to repairing buildings such as this.  Add to that the possible tax credits and a project like this can become very viable financially.

I also found it interesting that this was built as a rooming house.  While very maligned today, the rooming house was once much preferred.  Today, the old rooming house has been replaced by the extended stay inn or perhaps Bed and Breakfasts (though the latter may be closer to the Boarding House of old) though neither, even when adjusted for today's dollars, are as affordable as the rooming houses were.

It would be advantageous financially to keep the original interior layout when this building is restored. Plus, while it is great to save the exterior of old buildings, it often happens that to repurpose a building like this, the interior historic features are lost.  Of course, one can not legally have a rooming house today so an alternative use that works for the interior plan would need to be found. Perhaps small mixed use suites could be developed for a live-work situation?   It certainly would be nice to have a residential component. Of course, if the interior is gutted already, then repurposing is easier as the interior features would be gone already.

In any case, please e-mail the Historic Staff at mceachin@coj.net and amartina@coj.net in support of Landmarking this building.

Checked the realtor's site (Colliers Dickinson) but could not find anything.

What I could find was that the property was apparently sold for $150k in 2000 and for $100k in 2002.

I loved that Warrock's jelly factory building shown in the photos

I spoke with the broker who had the listing and it is sort of in limbo.  The FOR SALE sign is no longer at the property.  According to him, the roof needs some immediate attention.  This building must NOT be destroyed!!! 

The demolition request is being heard by the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission on January 28th at the Ed Ball Building, 8th floor at 3:00 pm.  Please, attend to speak in favor of saving this structure if you can.

So now Jax wants a historic district downtown...really? Um, don't you need historic buildings in order to have that? They've leveled just about everything of historical value, and if they allow this to come down, what's left? This needs to be stopped.

historic districts and various designations do not always have teeth in them to prevent demo.  Too much red tape, and conflicting info to understand.

The liability may be too much to assume, but it would be nice if a large downtown-based corporation (i.e. Everbank) would buy, rehab it and make into housing for their interns to reside while working locally.  Just an idea...

Quote from: mbwright on January 07, 2015, 12:23:29 PM
historic districts and various designations do not always have teeth in them to prevent demo.  Too much red tape, and conflicting info to understand.

In a way, you are right.  If the Historic Preservation Commission does not stand up against demolitions, and the organizations like SPAR Council and city departments like MCCD want those demolitions, the Historic Designation becomes meaningless.  It was exactly that way for about a decade.  Thankfully that has changed in Jacksonville in the last couple of years and while it could change back, by standing up and yelling loudly, the preservation folks can and will stop it.

I believe the current HPC will not accept demolitions like this lightly. The more people who speak against the demolition and speak for Landmarking the property, the better chance it will not only get saved but also rehabbed back into usefulness.

I wonder if the church could take it over for Sunday school, etc.

If you can't attend the meeting, be SURE you email to register your opposition to the demolition.  I sent my email off to Joel and Autumn. They always mention at HPC how many emails they received.

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

You don't even understand what is going on here. The historic designation is to PREVENTthe property owner from being REQUIRED to DEMOLISH his building, whether he wants to or not.

The building is boarded up and is not in danger of collapse.  Without the protection that the designation provides, he will be forced to demolish it.  Doesn't he have the property RIGHT to keep his building??!! 

The wonderful talk given by Ed McMahon at last year's TEDxJacksonville conference speaks very eloquently to the need to retain unique structures such as this, and also provides a powerful economic argument for preserving a city's sense of place. It was the talk that many attendees voted as the one they'd most like the Mayor to hear: http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8 (http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8)

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own.

The irony is thick with this one...

Quote from: vicupstate on January 07, 2015, 09:41:55 PM

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

You don't even understand what is going on here. The historic designation is to PREVENTthe property owner from being REQUIRED to DEMOLISH his building, whether he wants to or not.

The building is boarded up and is not in danger of collapse.  Without the protection that the designation provides, he will be forced to demolish it.  Doesn't he have the property RIGHT to keep his building??!! 

I think you both are somewhat right and somewhat wrong.   As a society, we accept having to do things for the greater good all the time.  We pay school taxes when we have no children in school, we wear seat belts even if we do not want to, we pay extra for things for social/ safety reasons, we see parts of our taxes going to help the homeless.  Call this Social Responsibility.  That is the basis for what Code Compliance does.  It is an attempt at making owners of properties socially responsible by maintaining their buildings.  Like many other government worker controlled things, it can get out of hand.  What I mean by this is that a falling in front porch can be a public safety issue but perhaps bad plumbing is a personal safety issue.  The latter is called public safety by MCCD and is reason enough to demolish a building.  However, if no one is living there, where is the public safety issue?  The point is that a building is condemned and then fined for the good of the public so therefore, it stands to reason it can be saved for the good of the public.  In fact, to truly protect the rights of the property owner, you must have both sides of that equation.  If the city has to right to prevent you from even entering your property without permission from them, to eventually demolish it if they so decide, then there needs to be a mechanism to counter the city to prevent the abuse of the system.  In this case, it is the Landmark designation that will counter the city removing the property owners rights and restore some of those protections. One also has to consider that the reason the city can remove those rights is that fact that they have given the owner ample time to correct the issues they have found and the owner has failed to do so.  It makes no difference to the city if the owner failed to make the repairs because he can't afford to, or just won't.  The Landmark status is different as it gives more affordable options to the owner and can provide some financial incentives to help out with those repairs. Especially with condemned buildings, the Landmark or Historic designation brings many safeguards that can counter the effects of what Jacksonville's MCCD can do in how they write up the perceived issues.  Once the new options are available, if it is a case of the owner refusing to take care of the issues, then it buys some time to figure that out and gives the city other options to save the building for the public good. In the latter case, it is not so much society removing the owners rights, it is the owner giving up those rights by ignoring his social responsibility.

At the end of the day the issue is money. Owners that lack the capital to make needed repairs; a city that squanders the money it gets it's hands on. But with solutions and examples around these days like Fundrise (http://www.fundrise.com/), community organizations like the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation (http://www.csndc.com/about.php) that do more than function as glorified HOAs, the Maron family (http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/08/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-how-cleveland-lured-young-professionals-downtown/6406/) in Cleveland, even individuals like Jason Roberts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iciuh5pbnsI) who do stunning things with just their time, the missing component of Jax is people with both vision and dedication in actually effecting large-scale change.

This is not to take away from lights in the darkness like Ron Chamblin and Ben Davis, or even Shad Khan, but given their commitments to their businesses I think it's unreasonable to expect them to be a panacea. MetroJacksonville does a laudable job building awareness, but awareness (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/) is not sufficient in and of itself to effect change. One option would be for government to step in and get the ball rolling, but I can't be the only one underwhelmed with the DIA. DVI is equally disappointing for me.

Quote from: grimss on January 07, 2015, 10:09:28 PM
The wonderful talk given by Ed McMahon at last year's TEDxJacksonville conference speaks very eloquently to the need to retain unique structures such as this, and also provides a powerful economic argument for preserving a city's sense of place. It was the talk that many attendees voted as the one they'd most like the Mayor to hear: http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8 (http://youtu.be/qB5tH4rt-x8)

This is a perfect project for Ability Housing, and a great spot for Veteran housing. If Michelle Tappouni could make this happen I might vote for her. I'd also suggest that someone should start DHARE (Downtown Historic Area Revitalization Effort) or some really powerful influential organization that could actually solve problems like this. It takes money to repair old buildings not just moaning and groaning.

Agreed with the consensus that it takes money to fix old properties, and even then, they are not always worth it. Look at what Timken has been trying to do with the Public School #4 under the Fuller Warren Bridge. That property has been on fire, sitting and rotting for years, or the fire station on Riverside, just sitting, rotting, waiting for its next use. There are so many properties abandoned, just sitting, rotting, but little money to fix, restore and re-use. Nice building too.

We would love to have a free standing building like this! Wish it was in better shape.

Quote from: mtraininjax on January 13, 2015, 05:22:40 AM
Agreed with the consensus that it takes money to fix old properties, and even then, they are not always worth it. Look at what Timken has been trying to do with the Public School #4 under the Fuller Warren Bridge. That property has been on fire, sitting and rotting for years, or the fire station on Riverside, just sitting, rotting, waiting for its next use. There are so many properties abandoned, just sitting, rotting, but little money to fix, restore and re-use. Nice building too.

not to hijack the thread , lack of money is only one issue with the School. ( and the property that was part of it,until it was deliberately cut up a few years back)   

Timkin hasn't changed on his position with Annie Lytle, and he would not for Elena Flats.  But he does get that the issue of funding to renovate is much easier said , than done.

Hope all is well with each of you .  Blessings

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

The "owner" in this case has not paid taxes. The last year of taxes paid by Jimmie Lee Clark, Jr. was 2011, paid on 05/06/11.  Taxes for 2012-2014 are unpaid (to the total of $23,182 and it appears as though the certificate holder has started the tax deed process.  So you see, in this case, the owner is a bit remiss in his duties as a property owner.

Just curious: Has anything been done to the building maintenance /  upkeep wise since it was bought ? Makes you wonder why some people buy properties in the first place if they do not do anything with them.

The HPC hearing has just begun for this issue.  Property owner is not present at this point.

Joel McEeachin is presenting the structure to the Commission.  Roof issues have caused some of the brick to separate from the subwalls causing some damage.  Retains much of its original character. Each of the four mantles are different.

John Crowley had a daughter named Elana - perhaps where the building name came from.
Is historically significant - marble threshold, decorative stairways, leaded glass, each floor with separate entryway
Exterior design associated with Klonin (sp?) revival normally used for single family structures.
Terra cotta detail and corbels are also significant on the exterior.
Suitable for preservation
Would be a candidate for mothballing
Planning & Development found that the structure did in fact meet 4 of the 7 requirements for Landmarking.
Owner did not share with Joel what the use of the property would be after demolition.

Public Comments
Woman who works at the Supervisor of Elections building next door - supports preservation but is concerned about the decline in the building, vagrants and animals.  Also mentioned concern if a fire were to break out it would be devastating.
She thinks the building is too far gone to be saved.

I just spoke in favor of Landmarking.  Advised PSOS would be willing to accept the property as a donation and work to mothball it and potentially help to obtian the funds to fully restore it.

Ricco Auditore spoke in favor of Landmarking.

Michelle Tappouni spoke in favor of Landmarking on behalf of SPAR.

Doug Nichols spoke in support of Landmarking the structure.

Public Hearing closed.  Jennifer Mansfield made a motion to adopt the staff report, deny the demolition permit and recommend/sponsor the application for Landmarking.  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.  Owner does have 14 days to appeal the denial of the demolition, but Landmarking will move forward.  The owner never arrived.

GOOD JOB JHPC!!!

Thank you for all the updates.  Good news!

+1

    



2015-170
   

ORD-Q Designating the Elena Flats Bldg at 122 E Duval St as a Landmark;Directing Entry on Zoning Atlas; Directing Notification of Designation. (Dist 4-Redman) (Abraham) (Req of Jax Historic Preservation Comm)

LUZ PH 4/7/15

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 3/25/15

1. 3/10/2015 CO  Introduced: LUZ


ORDINANCE 2015-170
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION), ORDINANCE CODE; DESIGNATING THE Elena Flats building LOCATED at 122 East Duval Street in the northeast part of Downtown, IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AS A LANDMARK; DIRECTING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION ON THE ZONING ATLAS; DIRECTING THE CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES TO NOTIFY EACH APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND TO CAUSE SAID DESIGNATION TO BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Landmark status is being sought for this structure. Part of that process is presenting the package to the Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) committee. That will take place tomorrow, 04/07/15 at 5:00 PM.

SUPPORT BILL 2015-1709
City Hall - St. James Building
Council Chamber - 1st Floor Atrium
117 W. Duval Street


If you can attend, that would be GREAT! If you cannot attend, please email the committee members:

Ray Holt - Chair
Stephen C. Joost - Vice Chair
William H. Bishop
Lori N. Boyer
Jim Love
Don Redman

The Landmark Package can be downloaded on the Preservation SOS forum: 
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1717 (http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1717)

Apparently the LUZ committee voted down the landmarking of the Elena Flats building last night.  They didn't think it was salvageable.  Unfortunately, there was no one there from the community to speak on it.

From the other thread:

Quote from: sheclown on April 08, 2015, 08:43:38 AM
Evidence was presented and citizens spoke up for it at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting.  The speakers were under the mistaken impression that the HPC commissioners were the experts in this matter (not the LUZ) and therefore the place to present their case.

How disrespectful of the city council to, once again, disregard the experts in this matter.

The fight for the Claude Nolan building took a year's worth of meetings.  I know that I went to too many meetings to count to advocate for it.  Others as well.  Hours upon hours upon hours upon hours. 

That being said, the Claude Nolan was shot down in LUZ as well.  It took Robin Lumb and Dr. Gaffney to stand up for it in full council. 

Maybe there is still a chance in full council.

Most of City Council, heck, most of Jacksonville, do not get the importance of preservation, the importance of having existing buildings available, the importance of not having empty lot ofter empty lot.  We are not a city that seems to learn from others nor do we seem to learn from our own mistakes.  It often seems like we are simply doomed to repeat, like a nightmare version of Ground Hog Day.

With this decision, even the smart ones seem to have fallen for the rhetoric of it's not worth saving.  When the likes of Bishop and Boyer can't see the truth of things, how can we ever move this city forward?

No, I did not go to this meeting.  Frankly, I never intended to.  I knew what the result was going to be.  One or two voices speaking for this in front of a panel that truly does not get it or had it's mind made up already for political reasons; it just didn't seem worth while.  Perhaps that means the city wins and can destroy itself.   I don't know, but it does certainly mean I am beginning to no longer care. I am getting tired of the delay of hope.

So the issue that I, as a relative newbie to Jax (7 years), see is that people do want the older buildings preserved; but they are not the ones to preserve them. Meaning that the ones that want them preserved do not have the power or the means to revive the older buildings...it's going to take people with the same vision and the means (aka money) to do this. As an example, the old building downtown with "Kartouche" on it that is painted black...I have no idea of what it was, but based on where it is, wouldn't it be a great refurb into a law office? You get some developer to refurb it into offices and then lease it to some attorneys. Bam! One building down, several to go. Same with that Ambassador hotel...law offices or nice lofts.

So, who wants to pony up the cash or talk a local GC/developer into doing it? Let's do it as a co-op.

Quote from: aubureck on April 08, 2015, 09:56:27 AM
Apparently the LUZ committee voted down the landmarking of the Elena Flats building last night.  They didn't think it was salvageable.  Unfortunately, there was no one there from the community to speak on it.

The community came out for the HPC meeting -- the place where this SHOULD have been decided and that decision SHOULD have been respected.  I mean, why do we have the HPC commissioners if we are not going to trust their judgement?  And how many times do the citizens of this town have to marshal their forces to speak?

The building may have a future. Jack Meeks wants to purchase and restore it.

QuoteDowntown boarding house may be saved from demolition

By David Chapman, Staff Writer

Jack Meeks said he's tired of seeing historic buildings being torn down.
So, when he found out recently about a former Downtown boarding house potentially being next in line for demolition, he asked for the process to slow down a bit.

The Downtown Investment Authority felt the same way and reached out to City Council to hold off on a landmark designation bill committees in past weeks had voted down.

Council complied Tuesday, putting the issue back to committees and at least delaying the possibility the Elena Flats building at 122 E. Duval St. could be torn down.

The owner of the building has applied to the city for a demolition permit, but the Historic Preservation Commission denied it. At the council level, though, the Land Use and Zoning Committee voted down the landmark designation, opening up the possibility of the building being torn down should it have passed Tuesday.

Meeks, a DIA board member, wants to talk to the owner first to see about purchasing the building. If that happens, he said he and his wife would return it to its original use as apartments.

"We're used to dealing with old buildings like that," he said. "Situations like these, they're love projects."

Meeks has undertaken several rehabilitation projects on old homes in Springfield.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545255

Everyone cross there fingers that Meeks can pull it off.  An historic buildings with apartments is a thousand times better than a parking lot.   

It is the best news for that building.

I posted this on another thread as well.

The Landmark status for Elena Flats will once again be up for Public Hearing:

Tuesday, May 12th (TODAY) at the City Council meeting.

Wednesday, May 20th at the LUZ committee meeting.

Please go and speak in favor of saving this structure if that is your position.  Both meetings are held at 5:00 p.m.

City Hall
117 W. Duval St., 1st Floor
Council Chamber

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.coj.net%2FCity_Council%2FCouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv&h=uAQFjXRt7&enc=AZMU_KVYcrgrBEJ6u-Ve7BN2VpYGXYwYzLS04ifSY-aNTYS1UrgOf4tshO3jkgLOpIBAZioxrszRiUkaeh8_iG8dzA5hoCIfZfis99ek0s1cr3AfSNK5HydyM0GaEBBbk_weJGlrKQbwfZ1qdAccxpgpAghKxaGY9k0LgYXDIkyiYWxmiVUVMY4_49Va9PrYQ1Lg153HPtUZ7M1K6LvIYZh8&s=1

Please watch the video starting at 2:41:30

"please be respectful" 

Kim takes her personal time to go to meetings and is treated badly by the city council members -- again.

Here is the direct link in case the Facebook link is giving you a hard time. 
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv)

I learn how to better deal with city council members every time I speak in front of them.  Even though some may attempt to belittle me or make me out to be an idiot, I will not stop fighting for preservation.  SAVE THE HOUSES!

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on May 18, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Here is the direct link in case the Facebook link is giving you a hard time. 
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv)

I learn how to better deal with city council members every time I speak in front of them.  Even though some may attempt to belittle me or make me out to be an idiot, I will not stop fighting for preservation.  SAVE THE HOUSES!

After watching the video, I don't think you should worry about being made out to be an idiot, the council looks to be earning that label for themselves. Your patience is admirable.

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Actually, preserving historic structures and allowing them to be rehabbed has frequently reversed the 'ghetto' conditions.  Tearing down buildings over a vast area for nothing more than empty lots and surface parking certainly has not. JAX being the prime example of that not working.   

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM
+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Follow the money?? The money is definitely not with preservationists...

Quote from: vicupstate on May 18, 2015, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Actually, preserving historic structures and allowing them to be rehabbed has frequently reversed the 'ghetto' conditions.  Tearing down buildings over a vast area for nothing more than empty lots and surface parking certainly has not. JAX being the prime example of that not working.

Nobody is stopping anyone from maintaining or rehabbing a property.  In fact everyone wins when a property owner is responsible and maintains the property.  Unfortunately, large areas of Jacksonville are owned by slum lords that do not care.  These slum lords push their agenda on message boards such as this one and they hide behind politicians that they fund. 

Take responsibility for your property or sell.  It's not that complicated.

Quote from: hiddentrack on May 18, 2015, 01:41:49 PM

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on May 18, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Here is the direct link in case the Facebook link is giving you a hard time. 
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv)

I learn how to better deal with city council members every time I speak in front of them.  Even though some may attempt to belittle me or make me out to be an idiot, I will not stop fighting for preservation.  SAVE THE HOUSES!

After watching the video, I don't think you should worry about being made out to be an idiot, the council looks to be earning that label for themselves. Your patience is admirable.

agreed.

The landmarking of Elena Flats will be heard by the LUZ Committee on Wednesday, May 20th starting at 5p in the City Council Champers in City Hall.

We need to come out and support the landmarking of this building!

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 03:13:01 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on May 18, 2015, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM

Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 07, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Actually, preserving historic structures and allowing them to be rehabbed has frequently reversed the 'ghetto' conditions.  Tearing down buildings over a vast area for nothing more than empty lots and surface parking certainly has not. JAX being the prime example of that not working.

Nobody is stopping anyone from maintaining or rehabbing a property.  In fact everyone wins when a property owner is responsible and maintains the property.  Unfortunately, large areas of Jacksonville are owned by slum lords that do not care.  These slum lords push their agenda on message boards such as this one and they hide behind politicians that they fund. 

Take responsibility for your property or sell.  It's not that complicated.

Preservationists and slumlords are not in cahoots to save derelict properties. Just the opposite. Preservationists want the properties maintained and slumlords are not interested in maintaining their properties.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 18, 2015, 02:07:40 PM

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 18, 2015, 01:55:15 PM
+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Follow the money?? The money is definitely not with preservationists...

Some of these so-called preservationists sound like randoms living out in the suburbs/southside/beaches/St Augustine.  Sorry if this group is offended by honest words coming from hard experience living in hard areas.  However, if they have skin in the game, buying old properties, living in the area, and fixing them up then they are walking the walk. 

I personally know several people that own 20+ homes in the urban core/springfield/northside.  None of them live in the areas they own homes.  If property owners lived in the homes or at most owned a few well managed properties then all of these blight issues would go away.

Unfortunately, the reality is there's a group of slum lords that profit from the low tax base of rough areas.  These slum lords do the minimum amount to get by and rent to hard luck folks that scrape by.  These tenants are not empowered to demand better and the area remains beat down and rough.  If the area improves then these slum lords have to spend money on the properties to avoid the ire of city codes enforcement and money on increase of taxes.  Meanwhile the tenants are making the same amount of money and can not pay more, leaving the slum lords in a losing position.  Once again, follow the money...

Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on May 19, 2015, 10:18:55 AM
Some of these so-called preservationists sound like randoms living out in the suburbs/southside/beaches/St Augustine.  Sorry if this group is offended by honest words coming from hard experience living in hard areas.  However, if they have skin in the game, buying old properties, living in the area, and fixing them up then they are walking the walk. 

I personally know several people that own 20+ homes in the urban core/springfield/northside.  None of them live in the areas they own homes.  If property owners lived in the homes or at most owned a few well managed properties then all of these blight issues would go away.

Unfortunately, the reality is there's a group of slum lords that profit from the low tax base of rough areas.  These slum lords do the minimum amount to get by and rent to hard luck folks that scrape by.  These tenants are not empowered to demand better and the area remains beat down and rough.  If the area improves then these slum lords have to spend money on the properties to avoid the ire of city codes enforcement and money on increase of taxes.  Meanwhile the tenants are making the same amount of money and can not pay more, leaving the slum lords in a losing position.  Once again, follow the money...

It's hard for me to follow your thought process. You're against slum lords keeping an area rough, yet you originally jumped into this thread by supporting the argument that owners should be able to do whatever they want with their property??

I'm also trying to understand why you'd prefer a dirt lot to a rehabbed building. That would be the anti-preservation stance in this scenario.

Naldo Knight, leave Springfield out of your comments, please. :-)  We live in Springfield, and I personally know more than several people who both live in Springfield, and also own several rental properties in Springfield.  My son and I included.  We/they are not slumlords. Everyone I know in Springfield with any money they can invest in real estate, are investing in Springfield.  (Because it's the coolest, best neighborhood in Jacksonville, and because we care about what happens here.)  Houses are being rehabbed like crazy.  Dumpsters are everywhere in Springfield as people buy and rehab homes. Inventory in Springfield is so low local real estate agents are asking neighbors if they have any houses to sell because the have customers looking for a Springfield home, and so few are for sale. 

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 19, 2015, 07:52:22 PM
Naldo Knight, leave Springfield out of your comments, please. :-)  We live in Springfield, and I personally know more than several people who both live in Springfield, and also own several rental properties in Springfield.  My son and I included.  We/they are not slumlords. Everyone I know in Springfield with any money they can invest in real estate, are investing in Springfield.  (Because it's the coolest, best neighborhood in Jacksonville, and because we care about what happens here.)  Houses are being rehabbed like crazy.  Dumpsters are everywhere in Springfield as people buy and rehab homes. Inventory in Springfield is so low local real estate agents are asking neighbors if they have any houses to sell because the have customers looking for a Springfield home, and so few are for sale.

That's great news.  If this is true revitalization with small investors acting responsibly then it could truly be the turning point Springfield deserves.  It is a cool neighborhood with lots of cool properties.  Orlando or Tampa would love to have a historical neighborhood like Springfield.  My point is that there have been headwinds keeping a lot of neighborhoods in Jax down.  It's better to have an honest discussion, identify the problems, and move forward. 

Lamenting the destruction of an older property with some cool architectural elements is not enough.  We need to look into why the property got into a state of disrepair and why the owner wants to tear it down. 

In this case, these reasons have been established. The owner wanted to tear the building down because the church across the street wants to buy the property for a surface parking lot.

Quote from: sheclown on May 18, 2015, 03:24:04 PM

Quote from: hiddentrack on May 18, 2015, 01:41:49 PM

Quote from: JaxUnicorn on May 18, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Here is the direct link in case the Facebook link is giving you a hard time. 
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv)

I learn how to better deal with city council members every time I speak in front of them.  Even though some may attempt to belittle me or make me out to be an idiot, I will not stop fighting for preservation.  SAVE THE HOUSES!

After watching the video, I don't think you should worry about being made out to be an idiot, the council looks to be earning that label for themselves. Your patience is admirable.

agreed.

Thanks.  I appreciate the kind words and support.  I will be back in front of some of the same city council folks this evening at the LUZ Committee meeting.  Like I said, every time I learn something...  :)

Tuesday, June 2nd at 5:00 pm the Land, Use & Zoning Committee will once again hear citizen comments on Landmarking Elena Flats.  If you are able to attend, it would be great to see folks present in support of this Bill.  If you cannot attend, sending an email to City Councilmembers would work too.  Thank you!

Bill 2015-170 to Landmark Elena Flats at 122 East Duval Street passed the June 2, 2015 LUZ committee by a vote of 5-2. 
The bill was passed by City Council last night by a vote of 15-2 with Remdan and Shellenberg voting NO and Daniels and Joost casting no vote (absent).

WAY TO GO JACKSONVILLE!