There's a very long thread (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21389.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21389.0.html)) about the Blight Committee's doings and the fact that City Council, after deferring it for 6 months, quickly passed Bill 2014-427 allowing demolitions just because a structure is vacant, boarded, unpaid code liens and has no power for 2 years. And appears as though Municipal Code Compliance has wasted no time in starting the process of demolishing.
As of this morning, bidding is now open to demolish 40 structures around Jacksonville. Each property address is listed below. The area of town is per the Procurement Bid document. I've not personally seen any of these properties and I can't help but wonder if these are the first of the Blight Committee's razing.
Arlington - 3
North - 5
Northwest - 16
Southeast - 2
Southwest - 2
Urban Core - 12
Procurement Bid No: CF-0082-15
Description: DEMO & SITE CLERANCE OF FORTY (40) PROPERTIES-PQ-DEMO-NO CHARGE
Link to actual document: http://www2.coj.net/rfp/documents/CapitalImprovementBids/CF-0082-15.pdf (http://www2.coj.net/rfp/documents/CapitalImprovementBids/CF-0082-15.pdf)
Arlington Properties:8747 Eaton Avenue (RE#143958-0000), 1949 (homesteaded, demo main structure)
6033 Peeler Road South (RE# 119558-0000), 1958
5367 River Forest Drive (RE# 128416-0000), 1950
North Properties:*6707 Cooke Street (RE# 026353-0000)
- The City really screwed this one up!
- There is no 6000 block of Cooke, only 5000 block.
- Wrong street address; wrong RE#.
- The RE# provided references a completely different property at 5752 Oprey St.
- Based on my research, I believe the property address should be 5707 Cooke Street, RE# 026535-0000, 1956.
1011 Dorchester Street (RE# 032437-0000), 1928
*2858 Haddock Road (RE# 089195-0000)
- I think the City messed this one up too...
- 2858 Haddock Rd is RE# 044307-0000, not 089195-0000.
- 2858 Haddock Rd is NOT in Brooklyn per the Bid sheet.
- I believe the RE# is correct (089195-0000) but the address is incorrect.
- Property address for 089195-0000 is 1023 Dora Street, a retail store built in 1930.
7463 Laura Street (RE# 032837-0000), 1925
3811 Perry Street (RE# 086541-0000), 1926
After seeing the above issues, from this point on in the list, using the address, I pulled the RE# from the Property Appraiser's site, not the BID.Northwest Properties:1831 Alfen Street (RE# 049990-0000), 1962
914 Baker Avenue (RE# 077567-0000),1914
824 Eaverson Street (RE# 075746-0010), 1940
9505 Flechette Avenue (RE# 038875-0000), 1962
*5115 Hancock Road (RE# 060352-0000), 1949 (city had it listed as 6116 Hancook Road)
5104 Highway Avenue (RE# 060266-0000), 1947
1098 Huron Street (RE# 049557-0000), 1953 (shopping center?)
2318 Labelle Street (RE# 055988-0000), 1953
3553 Mecca Street (RE# 047569-0000), 1948
*8521 New Kings Road (RE# 039968-0010), 1947 (warehouse?) (city had it listed as 8621 New Kings Road)
*2561 Orion Street (RE# 055583-0000), 1926 (city had it listed as 2561 Orlon Street)
*3508 Phyllis Street (RE# 078931-0000), 1920 (city had it listed as 3608 Phyllis Street)
1319 Rushing Street (RE# 052783-0000), 1919
1349 Rushing Street (RE# 052790-0000), 1922
4950 Vermont Road (RE# 040708-0000), 1964 (homesteaded, demo accessory structure only)
2578 West 43rd Street (RE# 030440-0000), 1955
Southeast Properties:8036 Hogan Road (RE# 137008-0010), 1946
2314 Johnson Avenue (RE# 147404-0000), 1957
Southwest Properties:6042 Transylvania (RE# 097537-0000), 1944
6195 118th Street (RE# 097895-0000), 1943 (homesteaded, demo main structure)
Urban Core Properties:3316 Canal Street North (RE# 084317-0000), 1960
*320 Chelsea Street (RE# 089281-0000), 1918
2517 Janette Street (RE# 045652-0010), 1959
2817 Market Street (RE# 044641-0000), 1916
1145 Palmetto Street (RE# 114178-0000), 1905
2146 Thelma Street (RE# 115504-0000), 1955
1648 Tyler Street (RE# 052659-0000), 1916
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
1064 East 10th Street (RE# 113986-0000), 1905
1145 West 24th Street (RE# 084541-0000), 1928
1503 East 24th Street (RE# 132117-0000), 1926
1511 West 30th Street (RE# 085211-0000), 1924
(Edited to add link to document, correct propety address info (indicated with an asterisk *) and to add RE# and Year Built.)
Thanks Kim. This is important information. Some of these homes are 50 plus years.
I don't have time to look up the entire list, so I cherry picked two addresses that I knew would fall within neighborhoods that are as old as Riverside and Springfield. Here are the two lots I looked up:
3811 Perry Street - appears to be a structurally sound looking boarded up historic bungalow in Brentwood. Once it's gone, most of that particular block will be vacant lots.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-6T8hpsS/0/L/3811%20Perry%20Street-L.jpg)
2817 Market Street is in New Springfield and will be the first house demolished on that particular block.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Urban-Core-Demolitions/i-HRS92Wk/0/L/2817%20Market%20Street%20-%20Jax-L.jpg)
For those who believe this ordinance provides some power to limit demolition of structures like this...structures that would be considered to be contributing if these neighborhoods were official historic districts...we're going to quickly find out one way or the other.
Interestingly enough, I just checked three addresses and all are more than 50 years old and so if Federal Funds, they will require the 106 review and no matter what the funding, must be reviewed by the Historic Department folks. First list of possible demolitions after the passage of the blight bill and already going after potentially Historic structures. I was hoping they were going to surprise me and do things at least half way right. And, yes, they can take whatever they want by calling it an emergency but tough to justify now that they are on a bid list. At least if they wish to avoid a lawsuit over the demolitions.
1064 East 10th St built 1905, 1319 Rushing St built 1919 and 7463 Laura St built 1925. Per Property Appraiser.
Lake got his post in first, so add two more to the over fifty list.
Yes, we are about to see how bad this Denise Lee driven law is, how bad this Mayoral Administration is and how bad MCCD is.
^Who needs federal money? We can find funding to pay for whatever we want to do if it's a priority.
Committee sets sights on $1.5M to fight blightQuoteBy David Chapman, Staff Writer
Funding for the city's initiative to eliminate blight in neighborhoods could have a dedicated source of funding if City Council enacts legislation outlined Wednesday by council member Bill Gulliford.
He's a member of the Special Ad Hoc Committee on Jacksonville's Neighborhood Blight and has been studying how the city could use about $1.5 million that's been sitting dormant in the Vacant Property Registry Fund.
"It's a revenue source we can count on year after year," Gulliford said.
Since 2010, holders of mortgages on foreclosed properties have been required to register the property with the city and pay a $150 fee. Community Champions, a Melbourne-based firm, collects the fee, retains 50 percent to administer the program and gives the other half to the city.
More than $2.5 million has been sent to the city since the program began. Funds are used to help homeowners make mortgage payments, mortgage counseling and to cover some of the city's cost for maintenance of vacant properties.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544838
How about using a chunk of that to address the real or imagined environmental issues that are holding up sale of the COJ owned vacant, blighted property at 9th & Main.
Just a thought.
What can we do to stop this action?
I would be all over this action if the structures they are trying to take out ACTUALLY posed some sort of danger. Just the couple in pictures appear to be nice houses, certainly in no danger of collapse or harm to neighbors. Instead of paying to destroy them , why not put out an offer to GIVE the property to anyone who would take it on and bring it into compliance.
The demolition avenue seems an excellent method to keep demolition companies busy , and perhaps a kick back or 40 for giving them business. Aside from that, no real benefit.
Putting a notice out would cost the City / Taxpayers a few dollars each property. The demolitions would cost at least thousands per structure. In a city that could utilize these dollars to do POSITIVE meaningful work with the money, destroying these places are absolutely the wrong avenue to pursue.
Timkin, my thoughts exactly. But in order to give them away, or even to demolish them (IMO) would require the City to OWN them first. This whole idea of demolishing before they take ownership is beyond my comprehension. And I think illegal.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 05, 2015, 05:09:54 PM
How about using a chunk of that to address the real or imagined environmental issues that are holding up sale of the COJ owned vacant, blighted property at 9th & Main.
Just a thought.
+1000
Its all about the kickbacks . Just sayin...
Kickbacks or not it's just plain ignorance.
Jacksonville lacks progressiveness, lacks a respect for history, lacks a respect for sustainability, and people in powerful positions are thinking of only themselves and not the people they represent.
The folks who directly suffer here are those who lack the ability financially or educationally to speak against these actions.
We have to keep advocating for preservation and pressing hard against ignorance.
Section 106 reviews are on the side of preservation.
That's a starting direction.
^ could not agree more, Ionia .
I searched property records, google maps/street view on the majority of these properties... MOST still look like they could be either saved OR are still occupied. Two aren't even real addresses, they either show vacant lots/wooded areas or they're nonexistent. I think I may be onto something in regards to Timkin's post but I need to delve into it a bit further.
Quote from: Light on February 05, 2015, 09:20:54 PM
I searched property records, google maps/street view on the majority of these properties... MOST still look like they could be either saved OR are still occupied. Two aren't even real addresses, they either show vacant lots/wooded areas or they're nonexistent. I think I may be onto something in regards to Timkin's post but I need to delve into it a bit further.
Welcome Light!! Nice first post...if you'll share the ones that are not real addresses I'll double check the list. Hope I didn't mistype some of them (it is possible). I have the procurement bid from the City I could email to you as well.
So, an important question to city council candidates is "where do you stand on preservation?"
Yes, the entire blight initiative should be a important issue talked about to potential candidates. It may appear at first to only effect the urban core and the poorer among us but the potential for financial damage to the entire city is there. And from this list, the policy is moving on to places like Arlington. Even the more modern ranch designs that were showcased in the recent Arlington tour are going to be under fire from this ordinance and the policies being followed. The cut off is supposed to be 1965. Think of Murray Hill, San Marco, St Nicolas and think about how they would look with every other house gone. From the 5 million in fees collected (2.5 million to the city), that is somewhere around 33,000 structures alone and does not account for all the vacant structures nor if some registered were multi family. HUD has stated the number could be up to 72,000 units.
There are always options to demolition. Even with the new "Blight Bill", there are options. And yet, demolition is the first choice here, even when the other options available are more affordable. When you talk to people like Kimberly Scott and Jason Teal, you realize that it is a choice they make to ignore parts of the ordinances they are sworn to follow and uphold. It is policy to use the most destructive methods in dealing with the issues facing the poorer urban areas of this city. That policy is set by people like Denise Lee, Bill Gulliford, Alvin Brown and yes, even approved or at least accepted by Lori Boyer and the others that say they are for better polices.
The only way to change those policies is to change the people setting them.
Just happened upon this site yesterday after seeing the blip about a new transit corridor to Tampa. Great site, informative.
Found a link to the documennt! Hope it works for everyone....
http://www2.coj.net/rfp/documents/CapitalImprovementBids/CF-0082-15.pdf (http://www2.coj.net/rfp/documents/CapitalImprovementBids/CF-0082-15.pdf)
The list of properties begins on page 38.
Welcome, JaxMetro; this is indeed an awesome forum, big on history as well as current political issues. We want to preserve our architecture and the urban fabric that used to serve us so well before the city exploded in suburban sprawl.
I have edited the original post to correct a typo and the City's error on addresses. I've also added the year built and RE# with some additional information if I happened to notice it. The addresses that were changed now have an asterisk in front of them.
Urban Renewal. Pure and Simple.
http://www.youtube.com/v/mWGwsA1V2r4?rel=0
And if you think this just affects vacant structures, talk to Mr. Foster.
"Slum Clearance Committee"
Eerie.
Sheclown, that is just sad.... I don't know what else to say.
Here's 1023 Dora Street. Built in 1930, it's the last retail storefront in the westside of Brooklyn that's not on Park Street. It's definitely not in danger of falling down but has been vacant for some time. With the stuff happening in Brooklyn, it's the type of structure that an urban pioneer would take a chance on to retrofit as a small office, residential loft or art gallery. Too bad the push to turn a little section of Brooklyn into a historic district failed.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/Jacksonville-Brooklyn/i-mhNh7mh/0/XL/P1190063-L.jpg)
Once it's gone, the best hope for this little footprint is a well maintained grass lot or parking lot until the redevelopment craze demolishes the rest of the historic buildings on this block.
From the page of Sunday's Times Union - from Steve Patterson:
http://jacksonville.com/news/politics/2015-02-08/story/demographics-show-canidates-face-many-jacksonville-consitutuencies
QuoteGloria DeVall, a preservation activist from the urban core, said she's concerned about the city's heavy-handed approach to dealing with neighborhood blight, as well as better parks and pedestrian and bicycle safety.
"There's a sense that the urban core parks are being neglected," she said
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/premium_415_wide_scale/14114218.jpg)
QuoteBruce.Lipsky@jacksonville.com
Gloria DeVall, a longtime Springfield preservation activist, said she feels the city is guilty of heavy-handed enforcement, like the threatened fines for this house on Market Street. DeVall organized an army of volunteers to paint the house.
on the list above is the house from this post last year:
Quote from: sheclown on March 31, 2014, 05:56:10 PM
An east Springfield woman received a notice last Thursday for trash in her yard --debris she is cleaning up from a fire which recently destroyed her home. She is working in getting estimates from contractors and slowly cleaning up the interior.
So imagine her surprise when contractors hired by code enforcement began cleaning up the yard. And to do so, they knocked down a portion of her fence to get the equipment in.
She called JSO. Three cars showed up.
After much heated discussion, the contractors and the city left, but not before returning a wheelbarrow full of trash to her front yard.
"The letter said I had 15 days and I only received it last Thursday!" she said.
As the contractors drove off she yelled after them "I"M NOT PAYING FOR THIS"
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/darcel1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/darcel1.jpg.html)
Dercel's house in on the blight demo list just sent out for bid. Needless to say, this is news to her.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/Dercel.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/Dercel.jpg.html)
Certainly the house has suffered damage from the fire; however, it is her desire to rebuild her home and return there with her family. It hasn't been a year since the fire and it is boarded up.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1847%20Market.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1847%20Market.jpg.html)
This house in New Springfield on Market Street is a beauty. One hundred years old and still standing (for a little while, at least).
So they can demo properties against the owner's will? Leaving the owner with a vacant unusable property and bill for a demo not requested? How does this improve the neighborhood's ability to become economically viable again?
Quote from: sheclown on February 16, 2015, 12:46:35 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1847%20Market.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1847%20Market.jpg.html)
This house in New Springfield on Market Street is a beauty. One hundred years old and still standing (for a little while, at least).
If this house is torn down, it will be the first empty lot on that block of Market Street. New Springfield has the majority of its historic building fabric still in place. It's a wonder it's not an official historic district already. This compact little district would be a perfect fit for conversion of vacant building stock into affordable housing. It's close to downtown, industry, has its own commercial strip and would be a good transit oriented development location with BRT and the north commuter rail corridor penetrating its boundaries. It would be shame to start destroying it now.
Quote from: sheclown on February 16, 2015, 12:46:35 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/1847%20Market.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/1847%20Market.jpg.html)
This house in New Springfield on Market Street is a beauty. One hundred years old and still standing (for a little while, at least).
Seriously? I've lived in Springfield. It's not for lightweights. Every property owner in Springfield is jumping for joy that these complete eyesores and magnets for crime are being addressed. Anyone against responsible stewardship of this community on the ropes must be related to Dusty Simmons or holed up in a Mandarin gated community, lamenting the loss of neighborhoods of 'character' in between trips to Whole Foods, Starbucks and Chick-fil-A.
If you want to see a rough neighborhood, I could show you a few. This section of New Springfield actually has enough going for it, for a quick turnaround.....if that's the ultimate goal.
When these houses start to be leveled, will current regulations allow home owners to bring in more "modern" designed houses? I'd love to see Springfield pull off what Riverside can't... A good mixed of old refurbished and new modern style.
I love when newbies talk for "the whole neighborhood". It's awesome
Quote from: jaxjaguar on February 16, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
When these houses start to be leveled, will current regulations allow home owners to bring in more "modern" designed houses? I'd love to see Springfield pull off what Riverside can't... A good mixed of old refurbished and new modern style.
Technically, the home on the demo list is in New Springfield. New Springfield is "across the tracks" from the identified official "historic district". You don't need a COA to build in New Springfield. However, the market isn't one where you're going to see people putting up mcmansions either. Any newly created vacant lot will end up sitting like the vacant lots already scattered around the neighborhood.
Anyone wearing rose colored glasses regarding the progress of Springfield needs to talk to Jacksonville natives on how many failed attempts there's been over the decades on trying to revamp Springfield into a viable neighborhood. The usual cycle for Springfield is a bunch of young people, dreamers, and out of state investors roll in every 10 years and try to make a go of it. I know because I was involved in the failed attempt circa 2002-2005. Back then the mayor and city commission promised us infrastructure improvements and zoning overlays for mixed use development. Nothing crazy like Five Points and Riverside, just normal city stuff. Meanwhile folks like Dusty Simmons were burning down renovated houses and freaking out the folks that had their life savings tied up in these 'historic' money pits. Suffice it to say everyone that could bail out did and cut their losses. Now there's a new generation of dreamers and Dusty Simmons is sitting behind bars. Lets support these folks in any way possible so Springfield can turn the corner and leave it's checkered past behind. If some asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden, mold filled house needs to be torn down so a nice house can be built with air conditioning and proper wiring then so be it. I love how folks out on boats talk for gritty urban pioneers trying to build a neighborhood.
Lol. You're on Pluto with this one. There's no SRG coming to build in New Springfield. In fact, there's no replacement for most of what's shown on this list citywide. Just weeds and liens that cost more than the property is worth.
This dreamer owns a house a couple of blocks from the one pictured. New Springfield has gorgeous homes
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%201.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%201.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%202.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%202.jpg.html)
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
This house is cute! It is located in a great block in Durkeeville.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 16, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Anyone wearing rose colored glasses regarding the progress of Springfield needs to talk to Jacksonville natives on how many failed attempts there's been over the decades on trying to revamp Springfield into a viable neighborhood. The usual cycle for Springfield is a bunch of young people, dreamers, and out of state investors roll in every 10 years and try to make a go of it. I know because I was involved in the failed attempt circa 2002-2005. Back then the mayor and city commission promised us infrastructure improvements and zoning overlays for mixed use development. Nothing crazy like Five Points and Riverside, just normal city stuff. Meanwhile folks like Dusty Simmons were burning down renovated houses and freaking out the folks that had their life savings tied up in these 'historic' money pits. Suffice it to say everyone that could bail out did and cut their losses. Now there's a new generation of dreamers and Dusty Simmons is sitting behind bars. Lets support these folks in any way possible so Springfield can turn the corner and leave it's checkered past behind. If some asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden, mold filled house needs to be torn down so a nice house can be built with air conditioning and proper wiring then so be it. I love how folks out on boats talk for gritty urban pioneers trying to build a neighborhood.
Yes, all of the urban Core has struggled in the same way that Springfield has struggled. The difference is the area most simply call Springfield is actually a Historic District so people with more financial means than the average Urbanite takes more interest in the District. And if you got in during 2002 and got out in 2005, you did OK because the crash happened after 2005. For the entire country. As to what the city promised, yes, we were all promised new infrastructure which only sort of happened though what did happen was a decade late. We did get the zoning overlay – in 2000 actually. Thanks for recognizing that the overlay is for things like allowing mixed use development rather than controlling use. Many do not. Dusty was actually a much smaller issue that most believe. SPAR's and SRG's active campaign to tear down houses and move out the poor did much more damage to the community during that decade. And the original plaster and old heart pine wood actually resists mold. And while I have posted from the boat before, these days I'm in the trenches working hard to turn some of those "asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden and mold filed" houses into beautiful homes for some of the new families moving into to the Urban Core.
What amazes me is that everyone seems to forget why a Historic District is made a Historic District. It is the very houses some seem to wish torn down. The houses themselves are the only assets that matter. Take enough of them away and the area may as well be stripped of it's historic designation.
And talking about the plight of Historic Springfield is important as we struggle to get the hundreds of existing empty lots filled in the more desirable Historic District, how can we ever expect to to fill the thousands of empty lots we will have in the Urban Core as a result of the current Blight Bill and the policies set by this Mayoral administration?
Quote from: strider on February 17, 2015, 08:07:19 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 16, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Anyone wearing rose colored glasses regarding the progress of Springfield needs to talk to Jacksonville natives on how many failed attempts there's been over the decades on trying to revamp Springfield into a viable neighborhood. The usual cycle for Springfield is a bunch of young people, dreamers, and out of state investors roll in every 10 years and try to make a go of it. I know because I was involved in the failed attempt circa 2002-2005. Back then the mayor and city commission promised us infrastructure improvements and zoning overlays for mixed use development. Nothing crazy like Five Points and Riverside, just normal city stuff. Meanwhile folks like Dusty Simmons were burning down renovated houses and freaking out the folks that had their life savings tied up in these 'historic' money pits. Suffice it to say everyone that could bail out did and cut their losses. Now there's a new generation of dreamers and Dusty Simmons is sitting behind bars. Lets support these folks in any way possible so Springfield can turn the corner and leave it's checkered past behind. If some asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden, mold filled house needs to be torn down so a nice house can be built with air conditioning and proper wiring then so be it. I love how folks out on boats talk for gritty urban pioneers trying to build a neighborhood.
Yes, all of the urban Core has struggled in the same way that Springfield has struggled. The difference is the area most simply call Springfield is actually a Historic District so people with more financial means than the average Urbanite takes more interest in the District. And if you got in during 2002 and got out in 2005, you did OK because the crash happened after 2005. For the entire country. As to what the city promised, yes, we were all promised new infrastructure which only sort of happened though what did happen was a decade late. We did get the zoning overlay – in 2000 actually. Thanks for recognizing that the overlay is for things like allowing mixed use development rather than controlling use. Many do not. Dusty was actually a much smaller issue that most believe. SPAR's and SRG's active campaign to tear down houses and move out the poor did much more damage to the community during that decade. And the original plaster and old heart pine wood actually resists mold. And while I have posted from the boat before, these days I'm in the trenches working hard to turn some of those "asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden and mold filed" houses into beautiful homes for some of the new families moving into to the Urban Core.
What amazes me is that everyone seems to forget why a Historic District is made a Historic District. It is the very houses some seem to wish torn down. The houses themselves are the only assets that matter. Take enough of them away and the area may as well be stripped of it's historic designation.
And talking about the plight of Historic Springfield is important as we struggle to get the hundreds of existing empty lots filled in the more desirable Historic District, how can we ever expect to to fill the thousands of empty lots we will have in the Urban Core as a result of the current Blight Bill and the policies set by this Mayoral administration?
I guess I've been away from Springfield long enough that I've almost forgotten about the epic SRG/SPAR vs everyone else wars. While SRG's footprint was large there was a lot of smaller groups that were 'fighting the good fight' during the early 2000's. Anything that's related to removing blight shouldn't be associated with SRG, they were just a flash in the pan, albeit a large and bright flash. There's a lot of independent rehabbers in Jacksonville that would come in and fix up the existing historic houses while keeping with the vibe of the area if they knew their efforts would be rewarded. Most of these homes that are slated for destruction should/could be fixed up, however, nobody has stepped up and taken on the responsibility.
Quote from: stephendare on February 16, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 16, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Anyone wearing rose colored glasses regarding the progress of Springfield needs to talk to Jacksonville natives on how many failed attempts there's been over the decades on trying to revamp Springfield into a viable neighborhood. The usual cycle for Springfield is a bunch of young people, dreamers, and out of state investors roll in every 10 years and try to make a go of it. I know because I was involved in the failed attempt circa 2002-2005. Back then the mayor and city commission promised us infrastructure improvements and zoning overlays for mixed use development. Nothing crazy like Five Points and Riverside, just normal city stuff. Meanwhile folks like Dusty Simmons were burning down renovated houses and freaking out the folks that had their life savings tied up in these 'historic' money pits. Suffice it to say everyone that could bail out did and cut their losses. Now there's a new generation of dreamers and Dusty Simmons is sitting behind bars. Lets support these folks in any way possible so Springfield can turn the corner and leave it's checkered past behind. If some asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden, mold filled house needs to be torn down so a nice house can be built with air conditioning and proper wiring then so be it. I love how folks out on boats talk for gritty urban pioneers trying to build a neighborhood.
There was no direct evidence that tied Dusty to the arsons (which continued after she went to jail for them)
Only the unsubstantiated accusation on the part of Louise DeSpain.
Otherwise, your post seems a little bananas.
So Dusty Simmons is innocent? All three arson arrests were bogus? I was living in Springfield at the time. There was open war between the drug dealers and hookers with the doe-eyed newcomers. The newcomers were using the police and the drug dealers and hookers were using knifes, guns, and fire bombing houses that weren't up to the 'neighborhood standard'. I was chased on several occasions by random groups of thugs late at night. I saw one guy get stabbed in broad daylight. I witnessed a drive-by shooting with guys leaning out a car window with AK-47s blazing on a known drug house, probably rivals fighting over turf. That was real, circa 2002-2004.
"There's a lot of independent rehabbers in Jacksonville that would come in and fix up the existing historic houses while keeping with the vibe of the area if they knew their efforts would be rewarded."
What is this reward you speak of?
"There was open war between the drug dealers and hookers with the doe-eyed newcomers. The newcomers were using the police and the drug dealers and hookers were using knifes, guns, and fire bombing houses that weren't up to the 'neighborhood standard'. I was chased on several occasions by random groups of thugs late at night."
Damn, what streets did you live on?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/Thelma%20Street.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/Thelma%20Street.jpg.html)
2146 Thelma Street (RE# 115504-0000), 1955
Quote from: 02roadking on February 17, 2015, 12:58:07 PM
"There's a lot of independent rehabbers in Jacksonville that would come in and fix up the existing historic houses while keeping with the vibe of the area if they knew their efforts would be rewarded."
What is this reward you speak of?
"There was open war between the drug dealers and hookers with the doe-eyed newcomers. The newcomers were using the police and the drug dealers and hookers were using knifes, guns, and fire bombing houses that weren't up to the 'neighborhood standard'. I was chased on several occasions by random groups of thugs late at night."
Damn, what streets did you live on?
I'm thinking he lost track of time a bit as this sounds real...for the late 1980's and early 1990's. As we were both residents of Springfield in 2002 - 2004, I would think we'd remember stuff like that, wouldn't we Roadking? He mght be talking a bit about the "Hampsterdam" days over on the fringe of the district - Perry, Boulevard and Eight - but it was not as bad as he is implying.
Funny that there are several independent developers working in Springfield today and I think they do have their eyes on a reward - a reasonable income from their efforts. I also believe they are getting it.
Quote from: sheclown on February 17, 2015, 02:55:54 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/Thelma%20Street.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/Thelma%20Street.jpg.html)
2146 Thelma Street (RE# 115504-0000), 1955
That looks like a good candidate for taking possession of it and giving it to one of the investment companies like Corner Lot that can turn it quickly into a nice rental. I can guarantee you it would be much cheaper than doing the demo and the resulting lawsuits over the issues the demolitions are going to cause.
Quote from: 02roadking on February 17, 2015, 12:58:07 PM
"There's a lot of independent rehabbers in Jacksonville that would come in and fix up the existing historic houses while keeping with the vibe of the area if they knew their efforts would be rewarded."
What is this reward you speak of?
"There was open war between the drug dealers and hookers with the doe-eyed newcomers. The newcomers were using the police and the drug dealers and hookers were using knifes, guns, and fire bombing houses that weren't up to the 'neighborhood standard'. I was chased on several occasions by random groups of thugs late at night."
Damn, what streets did you live on?
Lived at 138 E 10th Street. The drug dealers were operating around the corner at 2007 N Market Street. Look it up, the drive-bys and all the crazy stuff is in the police records. We would sit on the front porch, drink beer and watch the crazy stuff go down.
I remember this nurse and her retired airline pilot husband from PA rehabbing old houses. It was really a bunch of random people from all over, partying like it was 1999 and flipping these houses that were basically caving in. One group of rehabbers paid their workers in beer. The workers got drunk and ripped the plumbing fixtures out of the house. When they refused to pay the workers real money they burned the house down. Then Dusty Simmons hit the scene and I pulled out. Anyone that does a reality TV show on the Springfield rehabber scene will be rich.
What's the worth of a historic neighborhood if not for preservation? I bought in 2007 after much research and convinced myself that because Springfield was Nationally Recognized houses could not be demolished. Boy. Was I way off on that one.
But hey. Why invest wisely in the housing stock of the Urban Core. Nah, building the tax base back for years to come is pointless. Vacant overgrown lots marred with liens scream progressive. Totally the way to go.
I think the best investments the city has made is with that Taj Mahal of a courthouse and that jumbotron at the stadium for one of the lowest performing teams in the NFL.
Quote from: sheclown on February 16, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%201.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%201.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%202.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%202.jpg.html)
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
This house is cute! It is located in a great block in Durkeeville.
Why is this particular house slated for demo?
Quote from: Timkin on February 18, 2015, 09:58:11 PM
Quote from: sheclown on February 16, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%201.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%201.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%202.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%202.jpg.html)
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
This house is cute! It is located in a great block in Durkeeville.
Why is this particular house slated for demo?
It needs paint.
Quote from: Timkin on February 18, 2015, 09:58:11 PM
Quote from: sheclown on February 16, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%201.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%201.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%202.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/west%209%202.jpg.html)
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
This house is cute! It is located in a great block in Durkeeville.
Why is this particular house slated for demo?
Apparently a tree limb fell on the right side roof. Still doesn't mean it should be demolished........
I'm not a lawyer, and I just don't understand how the city can "take" these properties without paying the owner for them. Especially now that the ordinance has been expanded to include properties that are structurally sound.
There are owners who do not want their properties demolished. If it is not a public safety issue, how can this be?
I think I said this before, but I'm sure a large part of it is their guess that 99% of the time people won't sue. And they're right. The average person in this country doesn't know their rights, they know a miranda warning from seeing it on tv, but that's about it. Your normal citizen really has no idea, most people think the police are your friend, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, lawsuits are bad, etc. The city demolished 1/3 of Springfield in the past 12 years, some 500 structures, mostly for highly questionable reasons using an engineer who has never recommended not demolishing a house when MCCD ordered the report, and to my knowledge, there have only been 3 lawsuits. Saying 99% of the time nothing happens is probably low. From a legal standpoint with the landowners, history has shown us (and them) that they have little or nothing to worry about.
The solution here is regulatory. In all but exceptionally rare cases, the landowners don't know their rights and/or don't care.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 21, 2015, 12:30:09 PM
I think I said this before, but I'm sure a large part of it is their guess that 99% of the time people won't sue. And they're right. The average person in this country doesn't know their rights, they know a miranda warning from seeing it on tv, but that's about it. Your normal citizen really has no idea, most people think the police are your friend, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, lawsuits are bad, etc. The city demolished 1/3 of Springfield in the past 12 years, some 500 structures, mostly for highly questionable reasons using an engineer who has never recommended not demolishing a house when MCCD ordered the report, and to my knowledge, there have only been 3 lawsuits. Saying 99% of the time nothing happens is probably low. From a legal standpoint with the landowners, history has shown us (and them) that they have little or nothing to worry about.
The solution here is regulatory. In all but exceptionally rare cases, the landowners don't know their rights and/or don't care.
I think you about correct, and it is a complete abuse of power which the mayor and council have fully endorsed. It is a very telling vignette into the ridiculousness that is Jacksonville.
BTW, what is the status of those 3 lawsuits? Frankly, I would think an brash up and coming lawyer would try to bring a class action lawsuit.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/west%209%201.jpg)
I drove by this house and several others throughout the Urban Core and Northside earlier today. This house in particular, would be the first to go on a pretty nice and well maintained block of Durkeeville homes. The part of the roof where the tree hit, looks like it is not a part of the main structure. Perhaps, it was a porch originally?
Anyway, I saw several houses and structures worthy of demolition. However, it's hard to see the rhyme or reason to how this random list of properties was selected. At least in Detroit, they target isolated homes on blocks they'd like to abandon to save on costs to the city. In this situation, most of these structures are located in areas where there are several occupied residences surrounding them. Many seem structurally sound and the surrounding context makes them ideal candidates as affordable housing rehabs. Anyone know how the structures selected ended up on this random list?
Lake, I had that same response/question when I drove around.
Here's an interesting point.
Darcel, whose house is pictured above and ended up on this list, does not want her family home demolished. True, it was in a fire a year ago and was condemned, but it is not an "emergency" demolition because nothing major has changed from a year ago. (Truly if it were an emergency, it would have had to come down then, right?).
She has contacted contractors and is in the process of planning the restoration of this structure.
And yet, it is on the demo list.
When a demo contractor pulls a permit for a demo job, he does not get a Notice of Commencement like all other contractors who perform work on a property over $2500 in Florida are required to do. This Notice of Commencement is a legal form which notifies all interested parties that work is being performed on a particular property. The owner not only signs this, but notarizes it as well. This becomes part of the permitting documents. You cannot get an inspection or close out a permitted job without this.
Why don't demo contractors follow this when they pull a demo permit?
Is there some exclusion in the Florida Building Codes that allows demo contractors to pull permits without a Notice of Commencement?
But here's where it gets even stranger.
Although we can see from the bid docs that the contractors are getting paid $8 to $10k on average for the individual demo jobs, they are using $2400 as a job cost on the demolition permit applications. By doing this, they are circumventing the whole Notice of Commencement requirement and thereby not putting themselves in a position to need the owners notarized signature.
Would Darcel sign and notarize a demo permit for her family home? I seriously doubt it.
With just this one step, requiring actual dollar amounts on the permit application (and thereby triggering the Notice of Commencement), demolitions without the owner's consent would be stopped.
This is something that PSOS has been researching for some time.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/stinky.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/stinky.jpg.html)
Government cannot be trusted with this much power over private property no matter who is wielding it. For reasons I don't understand, bold, blunt action almost always seems to be politically popular.
How soon will she have quotes or something to show that she is serious about fixing it? It will be helpful to have.
I think our code system is complaint-based. Someone complains about a property and it gets action from Code.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 21, 2015, 04:23:44 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 21, 2015, 12:30:09 PM
I think I said this before, but I'm sure a large part of it is their guess that 99% of the time people won't sue. And they're right. The average person in this country doesn't know their rights, they know a miranda warning from seeing it on tv, but that's about it. Your normal citizen really has no idea, most people think the police are your friend, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, lawsuits are bad, etc. The city demolished 1/3 of Springfield in the past 12 years, some 500 structures, mostly for highly questionable reasons using an engineer who has never recommended not demolishing a house when MCCD ordered the report, and to my knowledge, there have only been 3 lawsuits. Saying 99% of the time nothing happens is probably low. From a legal standpoint with the landowners, history has shown us (and them) that they have little or nothing to worry about.
The solution here is regulatory. In all but exceptionally rare cases, the landowners don't know their rights and/or don't care.
I think you about correct, and it is a complete abuse of power which the mayor and council have fully endorsed. It is a very telling vignette into the ridiculousness that is Jacksonville.
BTW, what is the status of those 3 lawsuits? Frankly, I would think an brash up and coming lawyer would try to bring a class action lawsuit.
2 settled, 1 is still ongoing. But 3 landowners who stood up for themselves out of 500+ demos is just not going to serve as any kind of deterrent, it's not even a blip on the radar. I think one of the frustrating things about the preservation battle is that, if you look at the demographics involved in what's going on, it's lower-income people who are unlikely to be educated and have no idea of what their remedies are. The other slice of it are people who just don't care. A class action I think you'd run into certification problems, all of these individually will require expert testimony from an appraiser on damages, and then again from an architect or an engineer on the factual issue of whether the property was structurally sound. They're all going to be different enough that class certification is unlikely.
But individually, if a house is taken down by the city, there is a potential law suit? It's not that there aren't grounds but rather that there are not complaints?
Why is everyone getting worked up over this? If the properties are owned outright by the landowners then they have a clean lot to work with after the demo. It's easier to sell or develop this way. If a mortgage or tax lien is on the property and it's in a serious state of disrepair then the owner doesn't have the resources to own property and has no business creating a nusiance for the responsible neighbors who pay their bills and take care of their lawn and house.
To anyone that is shocked that 500 homes were demolished in Springfield...did you even go into Springfield before the demos took place? The place was a straight up war zone with addicts sleeping in and under vacant houses, crawling out just to eat at soup kitchens and beg or steal for drug/beer money. It was a post-apocalytic freak show and that's no exaggeration.
The bandwagon jumpers on this board, who think the city is out of line, probably live in some gated community or nice enclave where there aren't nuisance properties. To any of the folks that think demolishing nusiance properties is a travesty...I suggest you take up residence next to one of these lovely homes and then come back and post how you feel.
I first bought in 2007. Two years ago I moved my Dad to Ionia street from rural New England. He came kicking and screaming (for more reasons other than it was Springfield.) His time in the neighborhood has had a profound impact on his attitudes and beliefs about people, social class, and old historic homes. He relishes in making relationships with neighbors and watching the 10+ year condemned homes being rehabbed and he dabbles pretty strongly in his own preservation restoration efforts as well. There are three houses on his block of old homes being loved. Leaving two left to be done. There are three vacant lots (I own one) with nothing being built. There is WAY more rehab of homes than new construction in all of Spfld. The chances of someone coming in and rehabbing is far more likely than someone coming in to build. No expertise to know this, all one has to do is look around and see.
Had the city cared about Springfield as much as its vested home owners/residents, the "post apocalyptic freak show" you speak of would have been lessened tremendously. When cities invest in their neighborhoods, places like Springfield become a catalyst for urban renewal and economic prosperity for a city. THAT OPPORTUNITY STILL EXISTS. RESTORATION, RENOVATION, REHAB OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IS ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY WISE. But the City of Jacksonville breeds a culture of the opposite. A culture where politics, money, and ignorance win.
Enough is enough. Use the money to place the homes in the hands of a willing and capable owner. Individual, non-profit, business, whatever. Tearing them down leaves a vacant lot marred with liens making any sale impossible. We've got enough damn over-grown lots. Save the houses. Spfld isn't a war zone (anymore.) The naysayers need to research preservation and urban renewal or go find some gated community to live in.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 23, 2015, 08:49:59 PM
Why is everyone getting worked up over this? If the properties are owned outright by the landowners then they have a clean lot to work with after the demo. It's easier to sell or develop this way. If a mortgage or tax lien is on the property and it's in a serious state of disrepair then the owner doesn't have the resources to own property and has no business creating a nusiance for the responsible neighbors who pay their bills and take care of their lawn and house.
To anyone that is shocked that 500 homes were demolished in Springfield...did you even go into Springfield before the demos took place? The place was a straight up war zone with addicts sleeping in and under vacant houses, crawling out just to eat at soup kitchens and beg or steal for drug/beer money. It was a post-apocalytic freak show and that's no exaggeration.
The bandwagon jumpers on this board, who think the city is out of line, probably live in some gated community or nice enclave where there aren't nuisance properties. To any of the folks that think demolishing nusiance properties is a travesty...I suggest you take up residence next to one of these lovely homes and then come back and post how you feel.
NaldoAveKnight, "...a clean lot to work with after the demo" and "It's easier to sell or develop this way." Are you freaking kidding me? While I agree that property should be taken care of, allowing the City to illegally demolish a structurally sound home (hell, maybe even those that are not structurally sound) is ludicrous. IF the City is going to demolish, they should at least take ownership first - but then (I've heard) they don't want to be in real estate. Once a structure is demolished, a lien is placed on the property that must be paid or settled before the owner can sell the property. How does that make it "easier to sell or develop"?
Demolishing structurally sound buildings does nothing to help stabilize a neighborhood. What it does is reduce the tax base (reduced property taxes) and causes more nuisance issues the City must deal with (if someone isn't taking care of their property while the home is on it, you can bet the farm they certainly won't after it is demolished!). Demolishing structures in a nationally recognized historic district is in direct conflict to Jacksonville's City Ordinance Chapter 307.113 which states,
QuoteIn determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.
Historic demolitions by Code Enforcement are against the law.
Yes there was a time when Springfield had way more problems than we have today. The more good people who move into a neighborhood will eventually force the bad to go elsewhere. Good people who will not tolerate prostitution and drug dealing. Things have gotten significantly better!!
I am not a "bandwagon jumper", nor do I live in "some gated community." I was here before the Springfield demolitions took place and I'm still here now. When did you live here? And why are you NOT worked up about this?
Oh, and learn how to spell nuisance....
Really? 2007? That was after all of the gentrification took place. That was after millions of dollars in facade grants from the city poured in. I think they were giving out $25k per home. That was after the city spent millions on infrastructure improvements with new roads, sidewalks and streetscapes. That was after the city wrote off millions in back taxes so urban pioneers could take possession of decrepit properties to rehab and live in them. In 2002 I remember this guy driving from California in a little Toyota truck with tools and a few grand. He got an abandoned property from the city for $4,000 and started work. There's dozens of stories like this... There's no excuse for a nuisance property at this point, not after all the blood, sweat, tears, and money that people and the city have invested. It's time to take responsibility for your property or sell it.
Many properties lie in the hands of cancerous LLC investor schemes like Tarpon and Tuba.
The city should sieze properties of these scam investment companies early on and place in the hands of viable owners.
The recession, due to poor lending practices, damaged many neighborhoods including Spfld. But no need for an excuse. Ignorance and bully tactics lead Jax where cowardice and lackadaisical behaviors are accepted by many.
Section 106 reviews anyone?
The implication that an empty house is the cause of the criminal activity in an area is a favored claim of the pro demolition group. It is an easy explanation, one that politicians like because it can be made to sound true to the masses. It is great cover for the real issues that the politicians never seem able to truly address.
The fact is this. I have never had an old house come up to me and stick a gun in my face. I have never had a house offer me sex for money or try to sell me crack. In fact, I once had the JSO take a house of mine to the HPC to ask it be demolished because it was a haven for criminal activity. The funny thing was that at the time, I was storing thousands of dollars worth of kitchen cabinets in it and never had an issue with break-ins. Part of the facts of that case was simply that the safely boarded condemned house was paying more in property taxes at the time than the average homesteaded house in all of Jacksonville. The truth was that a developer wanted the empty lots. He never did get his wish and I eventually sold the house. It is gone today because once in the MCCD system of demolitions, it is difficult to get out of it.
Demolitions of houses are seldom done for the reasons people believe they are. It is never done to help the communities regardless of what the rhetoric may be. The loss of thousands of houses from the urban core will not help the residents even in the long term. But it helps someones bottom line. Perhaps instead of buying into the rhetoric, you should go and start asking who profits from these demolitions and the loss of housing stock in the poorer communities of Jacksonville.
This may sound like I do not believe anyone should profit from this ordinance. Not true as I think the communities can profit and those that enable that to happen should profit. Simply not from demolition but from saving and rehabbing these houses. Follow the entire ordinance and take these house and give them to those who can rehab and thereby allowing everyone involved to profit, not just the politicians and demo contractors.
Quote from: Apache on February 24, 2015, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: strider on February 24, 2015, 08:39:39 AM
The implication that an empty house is the cause of the criminal activity in an area is a favored claim of the pro demolition group. It is an easy explanation, one that politicians like because it can be made to sound true to the masses. It is great cover for the real issues that the politicians never seem able to truly address.
The fact is this. I have never had an old house come up to me and stick a gun in my face. I have never had a house offer me sex for money or try to sell me crack. In fact, I once had the JSO take a house of mine to the HPC to ask it be demolished because it was a haven for criminal activity. The funny thing was that at the time, I was storing thousands of dollars worth of kitchen cabinets in it and never had an issue with break-ins. Part of the facts of that case was simply that the safely boarded condemned house was paying more in property taxes at the time than the average homesteaded house in all of Jacksonville. The truth was that a developer wanted the empty lots. He never did get his wish and I eventually sold the house. It is gone today because once in the MCCD system of demolitions, it is difficult to get out of it.
Demolitions of houses are seldom done for the reasons people believe they are. It is never done to help the communities regardless of what the rhetoric may be. The loss of thousands of houses from the urban core will not help the residents even in the long term. But it helps someones bottom line. Perhaps instead of buying into the rhetoric, you should go and start asking who profits from these demolitions and the loss of housing stock in the poorer communities of Jacksonville.
This may sound like I do not believe anyone should profit from this ordinance. Not true as I think the communities can profit and those that enable that to happen should profit. Simply not from demolition but from saving and rehabbing these houses. Follow the entire ordinance and take these house and give them to those who can rehab and thereby allowing everyone involved to profit, not just the politicians and demo contractors.
Problem is these are city employees taking the easiest path to "fix" this problem. I don't know the exact process but it has to be a helluva lot easier for the city employee to demo and attach a lien than (I assume the process would be something like) fine or lien, then foreclose on fines/liens to take possession then vet private investors or non profits then sell or transfer title to them free, then let them remodel.
Plus it doesn't sound like any investors or np's have inquired or pushed for that option very hard.
Just because it is easy certainly does not make it LEGAL.
When can we get Berkman Plaza2 added to the list?
Jacksonville = Gary, Ind?
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/02/how-gary-indiana-got-serious-about-tackling-blight/386159/
Except Jax isn't losing population
Actually, for a city like Gary, the program they seem to be developing makes sense. They are worried about the environmental impacts. They are worried about the social impacts. They are trying to determine how to handle what happens after the demolitions. They are considering the future in their decisions. Frankly, Jacksonville seems not only incapable of that, the current leadership does not want to.
QuoteGary has lost more than half of its population since its peak of about 178,000 in 1960.
Of course, that is totally besides the point unless or until the above statement is valid for Jacksonville. Instead, we are increasing our population and our leadership seems to be supporting increased new residential development while we tear down our historic housing stock.
We appear to be supporting (at least in our actions) and praying for a return of a 1990s land development pattern. Maybe Jax knows something the rest of the world doesn't?
UPDATE:
Of the 40 properties on the list provided originally in this thread, 19 of them have now been "released for demolition" by Historic Planning.
2146 Thelma Street
2440 Cesery Boulevard
1884 East 25th Street
1861 Alfren Street
914 Baker Avenue
3316 North Canal Street
5707 Cooke Street
8747 Eaton Avenue
9505 Flechette Avenue
2858 Haddock Road
5115 Hancock Road
5104 Highway Avenue
8036 Hogan Road
1098 Huron Street
2517 Janette Street
2314 Johnson Avenue
7463 North Laura Street
8521 New Kings Road
6033 Peeler Road South
5367 River Forest Drive
6195 118th Street
I have also learned that there are an
ADDITIONAL 109 property addresses slated for demolition by Code Enforcement provided to Historic Planning to research whether they are historic. Historic Planning has been given one week (YES, ONLY ONE WEEK) to complete the historic review to determine if any of the 149 properties have any historic value. Researching a single property to determine historic value could take WEEKS.
The recently passed Bill 2014-427 defined Historic as follows:
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.
How is it even remotely possible for the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to determine historic eligibility on 149 properties in a week's time?
The answer: it's not possible. Which means the City is blantantly ignoring the newly passed Ordinance.
This is getting way out of hand......
The extreme idea of stopping growth from expanding outward (building in the suburbs) in a growing city, and concentrating exclusively of old stock (many old ran down houses in ghettos) is futile. You all don't have to like that fact as urban conservationists, but it's a sensical reality that's going on in America's cities.
You have to stop and think as an urban conservationist "Would I live on Rushing Street?" or "Would I live on Spearing Street?" let alone a house in good condition within those areas. I'm not shaming low income areas, because I've lived in them most of my life. Would you live in a non-gentrified high crime area? Most people live in Jacksonville high crime areas to A; Get by, B; They are part of the crime element themselves, or C; They are part of the dying old school that have their home paid for. That's it, no millennials or none of that crap.
Many aging homes that have seen better days in a place like Springfield is doable for many families; The house probably has historical charm, and architectural elements despite having old school features like small rooms; Contrast that to much of the stuff shown on these 'save everything' threads, and oh boy...Can you imagine being a 'House Hunters' real estate agent displaying a fixer upper house on Hart St somewhere? Yeah, see how that works out...
My thing isn't even to waste money to tear down all old homes in less desired neighborhoods like many think. I think that the worst of the worst deteriorated homes the present a major safety issue should be torn down. I think homes that have HISTORICAL ELEMENTS or someone famous lived there etc should be saved. As for some 'historical' house that's a nondescript shack with a rusted tin roof? As long as it isn't a safety hazard, let it and many like it sit there, sad to say. Wasting money fixing up old small homes (that no one will live in) with no historical elements in high crime areas is crazy to me just like tearing down sturdy homes.
I lived on 341 Nixon St (moved out in 2010). It was bad enough as it was (with draft cracks, no adequate heating, uneven flooring etc etc). Next door to the right still stands 345 Nixon St. This is the type of 'tear down worthy' house that I'm talking about; Homeless in and out, and no telling what else. Yes, I rather had lived next to an empty lot than 345 Nixon. No one will probably ever live in 345 Nixon St; This house will NOT be torn down because the owner comes by and mows the yard, make sure the boarded windows (at the time) are secure etc. This is reality in contrast to the paranoid hysteria about every old raggedy home biting the dust in Jacksonville.
PS: Comparing Jax to Gary is ludicrous, no matter how you wanna shake it...
These old vacant homes are constantly being set ablaze by arsonists in Jax. Imagine if you and your family lived next to one that went ablaze. I'll just leave it at that.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jfrd-firefighters-battle-house-fire-on-eastside/31596036
http://www.news4jax.com/news/2nd-eastside-house-burns-on-same-night/31599484
I doubt being vacant serves as a reason to demolish. Just imagine if you lived next to an occupied house that went ablaze. It happens. A few of the houses on the demo list were occupied until they caught on fire.
That is certainly one way to help the city deem the homes ready for demolition!
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2015, 06:20:54 AM
I doubt being vacant serves as a reason to demolish.
I never said that. IMO the worst of the worst (badly deteriorated home with no historical value) should be demoed though.
Yes. I don't think anyone is saying every structure should be saved from demo. I know, during my drive to view the houses on the demo list, I saw a ton of structures that I believed were "tear down worthy"....that were not on the list. So I'm still trying to understand how these lists come together? The only thing I can figure out is it must be a complaint based generated list.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2015, 06:54:35 AM
Yes. I don't think anyone is saying every structure should be saved from demo. I know, during my drive to view the houses on the demo list, I saw a ton of structures that I believed were "tear down worthy"....that were not on the list. So I'm still trying to understand how these lists come together? The only thing I can figure out is it must be a complaint based generated list.
I would agree, that is about the only thing that makes sense. The fact that 345 Nixon St. isn't on the list is because a complaint hasn't been filed.
The arsonist argument is crazy. Do we close down banks because they get robbed?
I would disagree that Gary is not a reasonable comparison either. If you look at the population of pre-consolidated Jacksonville, it has experienced the same magnitude of population loss as Gary. If Gary had consolidated, it's population loss would have been masked too.
The point is that virtually every city of any size is experiencing a significant urban re-population that is at least somewhat mitigating the damage and expense of suburban sprawl. Jacksonville almost stands alone in contrast to this trend. In that respect Jacksonville is many years behind it's peers.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 04, 2015, 08:12:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2015, 06:54:35 AM
Yes. I don't think anyone is saying every structure should be saved from demo. I know, during my drive to view the houses on the demo list, I saw a ton of structures that I believed were "tear down worthy"....that were not on the list. So I'm still trying to understand how these lists come together? The only thing I can figure out is it must be a complaint based generated list.
I would agree, that is about the only thing that makes sense. The fact that 345 Nixon St. isn't on the list is because a complaint hasn't been filed.
The arsonist argument is crazy. Do we close down banks because they get robbed?
I would disagree that Gary is not a reasonable comparison either. If you look at the population of pre-consolidated Jacksonville, it has experienced the same magnitude of population loss as Gary. If Gary had consolidated, it's population loss would have been masked too.
The point is that virtually every city of any size is experiencing a significant urban re-population that is at least somewhat mitigating the damage and expense of suburban sprawl. Jacksonville almost stands alone in contrast to this trend. In that respect Jacksonville is many years behind it's peers.
Before a fine can be imposed on a property, it has to go before special masters. Why then doesn't a house have to go before special masters before demolition? That would solve the missing due process part of this equation and give the historic planning and neighbors -- and most importantly the home owners -- a chance to weigh in on the demolition.
Quote from: sheclown on March 04, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
Before a fine can be imposed on a property, it has to go before special masters. Why then doesn't a house have to go before special masters before demolition? That would solve the missing due process part of this equation and give the historic planning and neighbors -- and most importantly the home owners -- a chance to weigh in on the demolition.
Sounds like another way the slum lords can squeeze profit out of a hurting area. This would be the slum lords pleading their case that they have a right to keep the junk properties around for some unknown profit motive or to get someone else's junk property for nothing. Sounds like the needs of a few ruling over the needs of many, in this case the neighborhood and the city of Jacksonville as a whole. Maybe the slum lords decrying the demolitions should move to Akron Ohio or similar rust belt town and work their perverted sense of urban renewal there. Just follow the money...why are these people complaining about demolitions? They want to buy them for next to nothing from the city for back taxes, do the minimum amount of rehab and then rent them out, probably as section 8. They are saying that they are 'protecting the heritage of the neighborhood' while trying to profit off hapless chumps (everyone but them), all while living on a boat away from the rundown area. Jeez, could this be any more surreal?
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on March 04, 2015, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: sheclown on March 04, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
Before a fine can be imposed on a property, it has to go before special masters. Why then doesn't a house have to go before special masters before demolition? That would solve the missing due process part of this equation and give the historic planning and neighbors -- and most importantly the home owners -- a chance to weigh in on the demolition.
Sounds like another way the slum lords can squeeze profit out of a hurting area. This would be the slum lords pleading their case that they have a right to keep the junk properties around for some unknown profit motive or to get someone else's junk property for nothing. Sounds like the needs of a few ruling over the needs of many, in this case the neighborhood and the city of Jacksonville as a whole. Maybe the slum lords decrying the demolitions should move to Akron Ohio or similar rust belt town and work their perverted sense of urban renewal there. Just follow the money...why are these people complaining about demolitions? They want to buy them for next to nothing from the city for back taxes, do the minimum amount of rehab and then rent them out, probably as section 8. They are saying that they are 'protecting the heritage of the neighborhood' while trying to profit off hapless chumps (everyone but them), all while living on a boat away from the rundown area. Jeez, could this be any more surreal?
Akron and such places have followed YOUR thinking and it have not been successful. Vacant lots with cumbersome liens on them do not bring anymore vitality than a distressed but salvageable house. Demolition eliminates the possibility of rehabbing and providing a livable home for someone, often at a fraction of the cost of new construction.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 04, 2015, 11:13:18 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on March 04, 2015, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: sheclown on March 04, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
Before a fine can be imposed on a property, it has to go before special masters. Why then doesn't a house have to go before special masters before demolition? That would solve the missing due process part of this equation and give the historic planning and neighbors -- and most importantly the home owners -- a chance to weigh in on the demolition.
Sounds like another way the slum lords can squeeze profit out of a hurting area. This would be the slum lords pleading their case that they have a right to keep the junk properties around for some unknown profit motive or to get someone else's junk property for nothing. Sounds like the needs of a few ruling over the needs of many, in this case the neighborhood and the city of Jacksonville as a whole. Maybe the slum lords decrying the demolitions should move to Akron Ohio or similar rust belt town and work their perverted sense of urban renewal there. Just follow the money...why are these people complaining about demolitions? They want to buy them for next to nothing from the city for back taxes, do the minimum amount of rehab and then rent them out, probably as section 8. They are saying that they are 'protecting the heritage of the neighborhood' while trying to profit off hapless chumps (everyone but them), all while living on a boat away from the rundown area. Jeez, could this be any more surreal?
Akron and such places have followed YOUR thinking and it have not been successful. Vacant lots with cumbersome liens on them do not bring anymore vitality than a distressed but salvageable house. Demolition eliminates the possibility of rehabbing and providing a livable home for someone, often at a fraction of the cost of new construction.
And saves the landfill from clogging up with perfectly fine building materials.
And saves the air from circulating previously encapsulated asbestos fibers and lead particles.
It isn't just about some romantic sense of a time long gone, it is about being good stewards with our city's assets -- namely sound structures which could (in a growing city) house people.
Building materials are so far inferior to what was available 50 years ago, 100 years ago, it is heartbreaking to watch them crushed and torn down. Anyone who has hammered a nail through a true 2 x 4 knows what I am talking about. Plaster walls are naturally mold resistant. Historic windows with their ropes and weights are easy to work on (anyone can figure it out).
Houses built 10 years ago and left for 6 months fair far worse than a 75 year old house left to sit for a decade.
As they say in preservation circles "the greenest house is the one already built." I would also say that the soundest house is one already built. The earth does not have the same raw materials it once had. They just don't make wood like they used to.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 04, 2015, 11:13:18 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on March 04, 2015, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: sheclown on March 04, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
Before a fine can be imposed on a property, it has to go before special masters. Why then doesn't a house have to go before special masters before demolition? That would solve the missing due process part of this equation and give the historic planning and neighbors -- and most importantly the home owners -- a chance to weigh in on the demolition.
Sounds like another way the slum lords can squeeze profit out of a hurting area. This would be the slum lords pleading their case that they have a right to keep the junk properties around for some unknown profit motive or to get someone else's junk property for nothing. Sounds like the needs of a few ruling over the needs of many, in this case the neighborhood and the city of Jacksonville as a whole. Maybe the slum lords decrying the demolitions should move to Akron Ohio or similar rust belt town and work their perverted sense of urban renewal there. Just follow the money...why are these people complaining about demolitions? They want to buy them for next to nothing from the city for back taxes, do the minimum amount of rehab and then rent them out, probably as section 8. They are saying that they are 'protecting the heritage of the neighborhood' while trying to profit off hapless chumps (everyone but them), all while living on a boat away from the rundown area. Jeez, could this be any more surreal?
Akron and such places have followed YOUR thinking and it have not been successful. Vacant lots with cumbersome liens on them do not bring anymore vitality than a distressed but salvageable house. Demolition eliminates the possibility of rehabbing and providing a livable home for someone, often at a fraction of the cost of new construction.
Even in the news reports that indicate the surrounding residents want the abandoned houses gone, they also say they want something other than the empty lot. These areas are in the state they are in because the city has fallen down on the job. Millions have come into Jacksonville in the last decades to help those very neighborhoods. Where has it gone? Has it been spent wisely? Have these neighborhoods seen any improvement or any real help from those millions? In fact, I suspect that the leaders behind this latest "war on blight" know that what they are going to do will hurt far more than help in any way. But they see dollar signs from the actual demolitions and from the additional millions the Feds may bring in to fight the very blight our leaders have created to start with and in fact will be creating by mowing down thousands of houses. It is an endless circle and will be until the people figure out that destroying communities is not the answer and that building on what we have in place already is far less expensive for the tax payers and far more green that allowing another new St Johns Center or Nocatee ever will be.
Email from COJ:
QuoteFrom: Jacksonville Children's Commission <jaxkids@coj.net>
Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:33 AM
Subject: "Fight Blight" Name the Mascot Contest -- Win an iPad
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/Misc2/i-4sLFmjT/0/L/fight%20blight-L.jpg)
About the Contest
The "Name the Mascot" contest sponsored by the Jacksonville Children's Commission and is open to all children and youth ages 5-18 residing in Duval County. The contest begins on March 4, 2015 and will conclude on March 25th, 2015. All contest submission forms must be received by close of business on March 25, 2015. Children and youth may submit one entry form via the Jacksonville Children's Commission website www.jaxkids.net, the City of Jacksonville's website, www.coj.net or by paper copy at their local library or City Hall. Submission forms must contain all of the required information to be eligible for review. All submissions will be reviewed by the Jacksonville Children's Commission and the top 3 names will be presented to the City Council Special Ad Hoc Committee on Jacksonville's Neighborhood Blight on April 8th and the winning submission will be selected by the committee.
About the Special Ad Hoc Committee on Blight
Help fight blight in the City of Jacksonville! The City Council Special Ad Hoc Committee on Jacksonville's Neighborhood Blight is working to help clean up our city and improve quality of life - but we need your help! Call 630-CITY, email 630CITY@coj.net, or go online to report blight in your neighborhood.
At least the mascot isn't a bulldozer named Buster
Hey, let's call him Dozer ..... two great references in one!
Below is a compilation of the properties that are on the DEMO list from Code Enforcement. This includes the 40 that were on the procurement bid that started this thread. I wish I knew how to imbed an Excel table that I could paste data into...maybe someone will teach me. :)
There were 40 properties on the recent Procurement Bid. There are a total of 128 properties on this combined list. The fact that MCCD has asked HPC to review tells us each was built more than 50 years ago. There are two that have been released by HPC AND released to a demo contractor (in bold).
I asked Michael Chao for the Procurement Bid #s for the 24 properties already released to a demo contractor. He told me to ask Procurement - I had already done that - Procurement said they need a Bid # or the contractor name. So I asked Mr. Chao to please give me the contractor name if he didn't have the bid #. Still waiting.
Column order:
Street Numbe
Street Name
On CF-0082-15 Procurement Bid?
Release by HPC for DEMO?
Already Released to DEMO Contractor (waiting for HPC approval)?
6195 118th Street Yes Yes No
9173 8TH AVE No No No
760 ACORN ST No No No
1831 Alfen Street Yes No No
1861 Alfren Street No Yes No
2270 ANNISTON RD No No No
914 Baker Avenue Yes Yes No
4418 BENNETT ST No No No
6616 BLOXHAM AVE No No No
6926 Bloxham Ave No No Yes
809 BRIDIER ST No No No
0 BROADWAY AVE No No No
1743 BROADWAY AVE No No No
2307 Broom St No No Yes
3316 Canal Street North Yes No No
820 Carrie St No No Yes
7816 Caxton Cr W No No Yes
2440 Cesery Blvd No Yes Yes
320 Chelsea Street Yes No No
2429 COLEMAN CT No No No
2020 COMMONWEALTH AVE No No No
6707 5707 Cooke Street Yes Yes No
2241 DANSON ST No No No
3917 Dent St No No No
9533 Devonshire Blvd No No Yes
3157 Division St No No Yes
1023 Dora Street Yes No No
1011 Dorchester Street Yes No No
6110 Dunmire Ave No No No
1064 E 10th Street Yes No No
1131 E 14th St No No No
45 E 16th St No No Yes
301 E 16TH ST No No No
1503 E 24th Street Yes No No
1884 E 25th St No Yes Yes
1873 E 27TH ST No No No
1770 E 28th St No No No
1223 E 3RD ST No No No
1226 E 3RD ST No No No
719 E 5th St No No No
8747 Eaton Avenue Yes Yes No
824 Eaverson Street Yes No No
3160 Echo St No No Yes
1965 Ella St No No Yes
1457 EVERGREEN AVE No No No
2971 Exora Ct No No Yes
2610 Fairfax St No No Yes
9505 Flechette Avenue Yes Yes No
5737 FLORAL AVE No No No
2203 Franklin St No No Yes
9000 Galveston Ave No No Yes
5845 GERANIUM RD No No No
2858 Haddock Road Yes Yes No
6116 5115 Hancook Yes Yes No
1882 HARTRIDGE ST No No No
5104 Highway Avenue Yes Yes No
8036 Hogan Road Yes Yes No
1098 Huron Street Yes Yes No
4005 IONIA ST No No No
2517 Janette Street Yes Yes No
2314 Johnson Avenue Yes Yes No
2422 Kings Rd No No Yes
2318 Labelle Street Yes No No
7463 Laura Street Yes No No
4446 Lexington Avneue No No No
7850 Marion St No No Yes
2817 Market Street Yes No No
1913 MC MILLAN ST No No No
3553 Mecca Street Yes No No
5460 MISSOURI AVE No No No
1496 Mitchell St No No No
4126 Muncy Rd No No Yes
1146 MURRAY DR No No No
510 MYRTLE AVE No No No
3326 N ARDISIA RD No No No
3316 N Canal Street No Yes No
7463 N Laura Street No Yes No
8621 8521 New Kings Road Yes Yes No
8749 Norfolk Ave No No Yes
611 ODESSA ST No No No
617 ODESSA ST No No No
2234 ORCHARD ST No No No
2238 ORCHARD ST No No No
2561 Orlon (Orion) Street Yes No No
1935 Paine Ave (Accessory Only) No No No
1145 Palmetto Street Yes No No
1319 PASCO ST No No No
6033 Peeler Road South Yes Yes No
3811 Perry Street Yes No No
3608 Phyllis Street Yes No No
2985 PLUM ST No No No
5135 POPPY DR No No No
2019 PRING AVE No No No
5367 River Forest Drive Yes Yes No
1319 Rushing Street Yes No No
1349 Rushing Street Yes No No
1735 Sycamore St No No No
2146 Thelma Street Yes Yes No
6042 Transylvania Avenue Yes No No
1648 Tyler Street Yes No No
750 Van Buren St No No No
4950 Vermont Road Yes No No
1911 W 12TH ST No No No
1983 W 12TH ST No No No
202 W 16TH ST No No No
667 W 16TH ST No No No
1983 W 16TH ST No No No
0 W 18TH ST No No No
501 W 18th St No No No
1204 W 18TH ST No No No
1423 W 18TH ST No No No
1430 W 19TH ST No No No
1586 W 22nd St No No Yes
1512 W 24TH ST No No No
1145 W 24th Street Yes No No
1030 W 28th St No No Yes
2945 W 2nd St No No No
1511 W 30th Street Yes No No
2578 W 43rd Street Yes No No
22 W 55th St No No Yes
1355 W 6TH ST No No No
1337 W 8TH ST No No No
1569 W 8TH ST No No No
1211 W 9TH ST No No No
1467 W 9th St No No Yes
1211 W 9th Street Yes No No
2127 Woodside No No Yes
0 YULEE ST No No No
Has anybody submitted total destruction, total violationo wanton destruction, for the mascot name?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on March 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM
Below is a compilation of the properties that are on the DEMO list from Code Enforcement. This includes the 40 that were on the procurement bid that started this thread. I wish I knew how to imbed an Excel table that I could paste data into...maybe someone will teach me. :)
There were 40 properties on the recent Procurement Bid. There are a total of 128 properties on this combined list. The fact that MCCD has asked HPC to review tells us each was built more than 50 years ago. There are two that have been released by HPC AND released to a demo contractor (in bold).
I asked Michael Chao for the Procurement Bid #s for the 24 properties already released to a demo contractor. He told me to ask Procurement - I had already done that - Procurement said they need a Bid # or the contractor name. So I asked Mr. Chao to please give me the contractor name if he didn't have the bid #. Still waiting.
Column order:
Street Numbe
Street Name
On CF-0082-15 Procurement Bid?
Release by HPC for DEMO?
Already Released to DEMO Contractor (waiting for HPC approval)?
6195 118th Street Yes Yes No
9173 8TH AVE No No No
760 ACORN ST No No No
1831 Alfen Street Yes No No
1861 Alfren Street No Yes No
2270 ANNISTON RD No No No
914 Baker Avenue Yes Yes No
4418 BENNETT ST No No No
6616 BLOXHAM AVE No No No
6926 Bloxham Ave No No Yes
809 BRIDIER ST No No No
0 BROADWAY AVE No No No
1743 BROADWAY AVE No No No
2307 Broom St No No Yes
3316 Canal Street North Yes No No
820 Carrie St No No Yes
7816 Caxton Cr W No No Yes
2440 Cesery Blvd No Yes Yes
320 Chelsea Street Yes No No
2429 COLEMAN CT No No No
2020 COMMONWEALTH AVE No No No
6707 5707 Cooke Street Yes Yes No
2241 DANSON ST No No No
3917 Dent St No No No
9533 Devonshire Blvd No No Yes
3157 Division St No No Yes
1023 Dora Street Yes No No
1011 Dorchester Street Yes No No
6110 Dunmire Ave No No No
1064 E 10th Street Yes No No
1131 E 14th St No No No
45 E 16th St No No Yes
301 E 16TH ST No No No
1503 E 24th Street Yes No No
1884 E 25th St No Yes Yes
1873 E 27TH ST No No No
1770 E 28th St No No No
1223 E 3RD ST No No No
1226 E 3RD ST No No No
719 E 5th St No No No
8747 Eaton Avenue Yes Yes No
824 Eaverson Street Yes No No
3160 Echo St No No Yes
1965 Ella St No No Yes
1457 EVERGREEN AVE No No No
2971 Exora Ct No No Yes
2610 Fairfax St No No Yes
9505 Flechette Avenue Yes Yes No
5737 FLORAL AVE No No No
2203 Franklin St No No Yes
9000 Galveston Ave No No Yes
5845 GERANIUM RD No No No
2858 Haddock Road Yes Yes No
6116 5115 Hancook Yes Yes No
1882 HARTRIDGE ST No No No
5104 Highway Avenue Yes Yes No
8036 Hogan Road Yes Yes No
1098 Huron Street Yes Yes No
4005 IONIA ST No No No
2517 Janette Street Yes Yes No
2314 Johnson Avenue Yes Yes No
2422 Kings Rd No No Yes
2318 Labelle Street Yes No No
7463 Laura Street Yes No No
4446 Lexington Avneue No No No
7850 Marion St No No Yes
2817 Market Street Yes No No
1913 MC MILLAN ST No No No
3553 Mecca Street Yes No No
5460 MISSOURI AVE No No No
1496 Mitchell St No No No
4126 Muncy Rd No No Yes
1146 MURRAY DR No No No
510 MYRTLE AVE No No No
3326 N ARDISIA RD No No No
3316 N Canal Street No Yes No
7463 N Laura Street No Yes No
8621 8521 New Kings Road Yes Yes No
8749 Norfolk Ave No No Yes
611 ODESSA ST No No No
617 ODESSA ST No No No
2234 ORCHARD ST No No No
2238 ORCHARD ST No No No
2561 Orlon (Orion) Street Yes No No
1935 Paine Ave (Accessory Only) No No No
1145 Palmetto Street Yes No No
1319 PASCO ST No No No
6033 Peeler Road South Yes Yes No
3811 Perry Street Yes No No
3608 Phyllis Street Yes No No
2985 PLUM ST No No No
5135 POPPY DR No No No
2019 PRING AVE No No No
5367 River Forest Drive Yes Yes No
1319 Rushing Street Yes No No
1349 Rushing Street Yes No No
1735 Sycamore St No No No
2146 Thelma Street Yes Yes No
6042 Transylvania Avenue Yes No No
1648 Tyler Street Yes No No
750 Van Buren St No No No
4950 Vermont Road Yes No No
1911 W 12TH ST No No No
1983 W 12TH ST No No No
202 W 16TH ST No No No
667 W 16TH ST No No No
1983 W 16TH ST No No No
0 W 18TH ST No No No
501 W 18th St No No No
1204 W 18TH ST No No No
1423 W 18TH ST No No No
1430 W 19TH ST No No No
1586 W 22nd St No No Yes
1512 W 24TH ST No No No
1145 W 24th Street Yes No No
1030 W 28th St No No Yes
2945 W 2nd St No No No
1511 W 30th Street Yes No No
2578 W 43rd Street Yes No No
22 W 55th St No No Yes
1355 W 6TH ST No No No
1337 W 8TH ST No No No
1569 W 8TH ST No No No
1211 W 9TH ST No No No
1467 W 9th St No No Yes
1211 W 9th Street Yes No No
2127 Woodside No No Yes
0 YULEE ST No No No
What a shame that the only thing suggested for these house is demolition as the ordinance allows for the taking and giving. I talked the the Historic people and many of these are very worth saving.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 17, 2015, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: stephendare on February 16, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 16, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Anyone wearing rose colored glasses regarding the progress of Springfield needs to talk to Jacksonville natives on how many failed attempts there's been over the decades on trying to revamp Springfield into a viable neighborhood. The usual cycle for Springfield is a bunch of young people, dreamers, and out of state investors roll in every 10 years and try to make a go of it. I know because I was involved in the failed attempt circa 2002-2005. Back then the mayor and city commission promised us infrastructure improvements and zoning overlays for mixed use development. Nothing crazy like Five Points and Riverside, just normal city stuff. Meanwhile folks like Dusty Simmons were burning down renovated houses and freaking out the folks that had their life savings tied up in these 'historic' money pits. Suffice it to say everyone that could bail out did and cut their losses. Now there's a new generation of dreamers and Dusty Simmons is sitting behind bars. Lets support these folks in any way possible so Springfield can turn the corner and leave it's checkered past behind. If some asbestos laden, crumbling, termite ridden, mold filled house needs to be torn down so a nice house can be built with air conditioning and proper wiring then so be it. I love how folks out on boats talk for gritty urban pioneers trying to build a neighborhood.
There was no direct evidence that tied Dusty to the arsons (which continued after she went to jail for them)
Only the unsubstantiated accusation on the part of Louise DeSpain.
Otherwise, your post seems a little bananas.
So Dusty Simmons is innocent? All three arson arrests were bogus? I was living in Springfield at the time. There was open war between the drug dealers and hookers with the doe-eyed newcomers. The newcomers were using the police and the drug dealers and hookers were using knifes, guns, and fire bombing houses that weren't up to the 'neighborhood standard'. I was chased on several occasions by random groups of thugs late at night. I saw one guy get stabbed in broad daylight. I witnessed a drive-by shooting with guys leaning out a car window with AK-47s blazing on a known drug house, probably rivals fighting over turf. That was real, circa 2002-2004.
Yes, Dusty Simmons is innocent. I joined a flower planting group at the time, and I and probably 50 other ladies--Dusty Simmons being one of them, bless her heart--planted beautiful flowers all over Springfield. The police said that crime went down by 25%, so we were on our way. I believe you are making up the part about AK-47s blazing on a known drug house, as well as making up hookers using knifes and guns. If that is the way you want to remember it, fine, but it likely your own fervent imagination playing tricks on you. Either that or you are exaggerating. Springfield was about to turn the corner, still is. What it needs is the city to invest in restoration. That and a wonderful group of realtors like they had 2002-2005.
Stephen,
We're you involved in Springfield during that era (2002-2005)? Naldo, with his references to AK-47s and hookers pulling knives, makes it sound like urban Detroit. That wasn't the case was it? He must be exaggerating to get a rise out of the members on this board.
Dovewings
Quote from: stephendare on March 20, 2015, 10:41:36 AM
Dusty has been in jail for years because Louise DeSpain accused her of arson.
Dusty was actually the person who called the fire department about the fire at Louise's house. Under Louis's direction the police charged her and claimed that she had a "flame accelerant" -----a small bottle of whiskey on her person.
Louise literally claimed that Dusty was so angry at all the rich folks moving in and taking away her slum that she tried to burn the neighborhood down in order to stop gentrification.
So off to the P Farm went Dusty.
The arsons continues for another 8 years after Louise bravely imprisoned the poor woman and tagged her with the "Springfield Arsonist" label.
What was presented as proof in court ? Just curious...
Quote from: Dovewings on March 25, 2015, 12:16:53 PM
Naldo, with his references to AK-47s and hookers pulling knives, makes it sound like urban Detroit. That wasn't the case was it? He must be exaggerating to get a rise out of the members on this board.
Dovewings
SPR was crazy much of the 80's & 90's, started to calm down in the early 2000's. Today, there's certain blocks or parts of blocks with sketchy activity, but nothing of severity. The days of renovators or new home buyers "fighting" with gangs of dealers or arsonists are long, long over.
Check out nicely renovated or new construction home per sq foot, it tells the story.
Having lived in Springfield from 1999 to 2004 and having worked there almost every day from 2000 to today, I can tell you that the 2000's were quite calm compared to the previous three decades. Most of Springfield was calm by 2002 except for some small pockets that seemed to be still fought over. Main Street, where Stephen first opened Boomtown was certainly one of them. However, by 2003 ish, you could walk pretty much anywhere from Market to Silver at 2 in the morning and feel as safe as anywhere else in the city. Part of that was Stephen's work with Boomtown as when regular people starting walking around at night, things will improve. Sort of use it to improve it.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,13103.msg407494.html#msg407494
American Motors Export Co on demo hit list. See info above.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/nicoles%20flyer.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/nicoles%20flyer.jpg.html)
Thanks to Nicole Lopez, these notifications will be going out to all homes on the demolition list.
(We know from previous demolitions, owners are not always properly notified.) :-*
This is what Jacksonville needs to do with these abandoned homes and buildings! Very inspirational TED talk about how to actually revive neighborhoods using these places the city only sees as a detriment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ry1M7JlyE&spfreload=10
Quote from: UNFurbanist on March 29, 2015, 04:58:40 PM
This is what Jacksonville needs to do with these abandoned homes and buildings! Very inspirational TED talk about how to actually revive neighborhoods using these places the city only sees as a detriment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ry1M7JlyE&spfreload=10
Thanks!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/S9ry1M7JlyE?rel=0"%20frameborder=
from research that Nicole did on this list, she has determined the following:
Quote
Of the list I was provided:
77 letters mailed
24/77 to LLC owners
3/77 to bank owners
6/77 to Estate owners
44/77 to people owners
50 addresses on the list named the house and mailing address the same (did not send letter)
2 addresses on the list show the parcel as already vacant (did not send letter)
1 address was not found on coj
2 addresses had 0 as the address (no letters sent)
Banks = Chase, Fannie Mae, some foreclosure Attorney
Estates = 4 in Jax, 2 out of state
People = 30 in local Jax, 8 in Fl, 4 out of state
LLc = 6 in FL, 8 in local Jax, 10 out of state
Of the LLCs, 4 had multiple properties. (2 had 2, 2 had 3 properties)
Interesting to note that the data shows local Jax owners are the issue.
Not LLCs. Not out of state owners.
At least in this batch of addresses