40 Places Code Enforcement Wants to Demolish
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3888590851_6g24ctX-L.jpg)
Recently, the Jacksonville City Council passed a bill that allows demolitions just because a structure is vacant, boarded, has unpaid code liens or without power for two years. Naturally, Municipal Code Compliance has wasted no time getting the demolition process started. Bidding for the demolition of 40 buildings are already underway. You'll be surprised at the condition of some of the places on the list. Here's all 40, their location, and the year they were built.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-feb-40-places-code-enforcement-wants-to-demolish
Thank you for doing this! And thank you Kim Pryor for providing the list.
What a shame. These houses are just a part of the affordable housing stock which will be lost due to short-sited legislation. Why aren't these homes given to non-profits? I thought that was part of the deal.
damn. exactly give these houses away.
If the number was three times as many..perhaps some of the neighborhoods would finally be viable...
It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses. Once demo'd, they are gone for good. There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time. As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.
Quote from: mbwright on February 20, 2015, 09:41:36 AM
It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses. Once demo'd, they are gone for good. There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time. As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.
+1000. While it is at least somewhat plausible that new construction will one day occur in LaVilla, Brooklyn and Springfield on those vacant lots. I will bet at least 90% of lots will still be vacant in 10 years. JAX is truly using the Detroit model here, and will have the same success rate.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 20, 2015, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: mbwright on February 20, 2015, 09:41:36 AM
It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses. Once demo'd, they are gone for good. There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time. As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.
+1000. While it is at least somewhat plausible that new construction will one day occur in LaVilla, Brooklyn and Springfield on those vacant lots. I will bet at least 90% of lots will still be vacant in 10 years. JAX is truly using the Detroit model here, and will have the same success rate.
Indeed.
Kay has the stats -- rebuilding is highly unlikely.
Lets face it, most of the houses are dumps in the hood that realistically even if saved are going to sit there empty for years to come just rotting away more. I am all for preserving historical homes, but lets be realistic here.
So why use taxpayer money to pay to demolish them?
Agreed - I'd rather have rotting houses (as long as they do not pose any danger) than grassy lots and asbestos-filled air.
If you go in these neighborhoods and talk to the people that live there, they do not want long abandoned dilapidated homes that are nothing but an improvised shelter for the homeless, a drug hideout, an arsonist's opportunity etc etc. Preservationists are always gonna look at any little tin shack with a glass all the way full spirit; Reality is much more dismal. I agree with Gerschea 100%. TBH, I see maybe about seven of forty that I would want saved. There's a reason why these places are on this list. Contrary to popular belief, tearing down houses is a very slow and gradual process. The weakest/less aesthetic etc will be revealed and the first torn down.
Quote from: I-10east on February 23, 2015, 04:56:26 PM
If you go in these neighborhoods and talk to the people that live there, they do not want long abandoned dilapidated homes that are nothing but an improvised shelter for the homeless, a drug hideout, an arsonist's opportunity etc etc. Preservationists are always gonna look at any little tin shack with a glass all the way full spirit; Reality is much more dismal.
Maybe in Jax because we don't expect anything better is possible. I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.
QuoteI agree with Gerschea 100%. TBH, I see maybe about seven of forty that I would want saved. There's a reason why these places are on this list.
I'm still trying to figure out the reason of how this list was specifically developed. I drove to see every home in the Urban Core and Northside on this list over weekend. I saw a ton of structures....not on the list... that should be torn down. Yet, despite being in worse shape, they aren't on the list. I'm highly interested in learning the selection process utilized.
QuoteContrary to popular belief, tearing down houses is a very slow and gradual process. The weakest/less aesthetic etc will be revealed and the first torn down.
Yes, a slow gradual process that you don't realize how different things end up being 10 years down the road. Take a look at the 1990s images of downtown (front page story today). Many of the structures in those images are gone. They all weren't torn down with one big wrecking ball party. A demo here, a demo there. Move into the 21st century and then you start to realize how much has been lost and replaced with absolutely nothing.
Two things are occurring in parallel that make absolutely no sense.
Virgin land is continually being developed farther and farther away from the city's core. Massive amounts of money must be spent to build roads, install water and sewer lines, provide garbage collection, provide police and fire protection, parks, schools etc. to these areas. For the most part, these areas do not generate the tax revenues nor the impact fees to cover the cost of these services. The difference is covered by those living in already developed areas.
Meanwhile tax revenues are being used to tear down existing homes that already have utilities, paved streets, and already served by public safety. Yet there are no plans and likely won't be to build something new on these sites. As fewer and fewer people are served in these previously developed areas, the cost per resident to continue to serve them goes up.
How long can that last before it simply can't be sustained?
Quote from: thelakelander on February 23, 2015, 05:10:59 PM
I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.
It depends were you live in town. If you are in Springfield or Murray Hill (not saying that no homes have not been torn down in those places), the overall feeling of home restoration would probably be more optimistic than if you were on the Eastside or Grand Park etc. Below link is what happens when a home has seen better days, and should be torn down. Notice the neighbors wanting a house demo like I was mentioning; Some of yall would probably say 'save that one also'.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jacksonvilles-blighted-properties/30973112
Quote from: I-10east on February 23, 2015, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 23, 2015, 05:10:59 PM
I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.
It depends were you live in town. If you are in Springfield or Murray Hill (not saying that no homes have not been torn down in those places), the overall feeling of home restoration would probably be more optimistic than if you were on the Eastside or Grand Park etc. Below link is what happens when a home has seen better days, and should be torn down. Notice the neighbors wanting a house demo like I was mentioning; Some of yall would probably say 'save that one also'.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jacksonvilles-blighted-properties/30973112
Yes, some of the residents said they wish for houses to be torn down. Those same residents said that they want something else there, not just empty lots. Which is exactly what Lake said. And I know to be true. I also know that some houses should indeed come down. Doesn't mean that the 40 on this list should, as for the most part, they should not be taken down. Certainly not when, though it is hard to tell from what folks like Mr Jones and Ms Lee say, this ordinance is not just demolitions, it allows for the taking of properties and then turning them over to both for profit and non-profit entities to rehab them. Interesting that the report you linked didn't mention that, isn't it?
The issue is that regardless of what the ordinance says, demolition will be the "fix" of choice. Unless we can vote in new and better leadership.
^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...
Quote from: I-10east on February 23, 2015, 07:00:45 PM
^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...
Do these groups have the financial and other wherewithal to build in short order on these lots? Even so, that does not address the very obvious legal issues or why buildings that are clearly not beyond repair are chosen for placement on this list.
Demolitions are difficult to obtain and rare in Charleston but even when they are approved, a building permit must be obtained for the NEW structure before a demolition permit is issued for the OLD one. That way the party involved can't just say they have a plan for a replacement, they have to actually provide it (and have it approved). This prevents 'gap tooth' vacant lot accumulation which history tells us will be the end result of JAX's policy.
A quick drive through the urban core shows how rarely these vacant lots are rebuilt
Quote from: I-10east on February 23, 2015, 07:00:45 PM
^^^It's common sense that someone would prefer to live next to an occupied house opposed to an empty lot...I've talked about Habijax fill in, the new Eastside development ad nauseum. I guess that I have to keep saying the same old stuff over and over again just to thwart off common sense trivial matters...
So where is the common sense of demolishing house after house without thought as to what to do with the empty lot?
The orgs like Habijax just do not have the resources to do the number of houses needed to have a successful rehab program. That is why the "Blight Ordinance" included for profit companies in the mix. The for profit companies can do the work for less and do it quicker and also handle a far higher number of houses. I fear however that the city both lacks the capacity to set up a successful program and that some within the leadership really does want to only use the demolition part of the ordinance and never intended to pursue saving any of the houses.
I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option. I certainly have not heard of any sort of RFP for rehab.
I do really like the Charleston laws of must have permit for new structure to replace an old one, not just a demo. This should be required for any historic district, or structure (house, warehouse, church or other) 50 years old or older. The value of a demo at $2400 on a permit to avoid the NOC, and charging 8-10K per demo should be fraud, and illegal, but I would be that this would be hard to fight without interest in the activity. I doubt a love for old houses would be enough.
Quote from: mbwright on February 24, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.
Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy...
Quote from: I-10east on February 24, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: mbwright on February 24, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.
Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight it's going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy...
Actually, I just reaffirmed with a couple of investors I know. They will take as many as they can get. Every single house available? Of course not, but on the list above, the majority would qualify for them without a second thought. Some houses will need to be taken down, but the facts are that if you can give the majority a second chance by giving it to an investor who must agree to rehab within a certain time frame (per the ordinance), then even if the giving costs the same as the demotion, the future returns from the rehabbed house is 100 times better than that weed filled empty lot.
The desire to demo isn't laziness, it is not using common sense. Or worse, corruption. Maybe both. We need better leadership than we are getting from the Mayor's office and most of City Council.
Quote from: I-10east on February 24, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: mbwright on February 24, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.
Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy...
Barely a year ago, I had a face to face conversation with a man that has been doing rehab and new construction in Springfield, with great success. He told me that he tried to buy a condemned home in Springfield next to one of his new houses, which he wanted to rehab.
He was told that this particular house was 'way down the list' and that the opportunity to obtain it would have to wait until the city staff worked it's way to that one. Based on current staffing levels, etc. it would be a year or two. He was told he should check back later.
The house clearly needed cosmetics but did not look obviously structurally compromised. The rehabber/builder told me that in two years that might not be the case, and that even if it was still salvageable then, it would no doubt be more expensive to do so than if he started immediately. He pointed out some things that if not addressed now, would lead to bigger problems later.
He surmised that the city's added tax revenue from the two year interval (from a renovated property today vs. the same one done two years hence), could easily pay for the cost of additional inspectors/bureaucrats the city would have to hire.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 25, 2015, 05:03:59 AM
Quote from: I-10east on February 24, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: mbwright on February 24, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
I just don't see anybody wanting to take over these properties, even if the city gave an opportunity to do so, which does even appear to be an option.
Exactly. To the people that's doubling down with the same old 'save everything' mentality, don't worry, I guarantee that unsightly blight isn't going anywhere for years, even decades...It will be there for you all to enjoy...
Barely a year ago, I had a face to face conversation with a man that has been doing rehab and new construction in Springfield, with great success. He told me that he tried to buy a condemned home in Springfield next to one of his new houses, which he wanted to rehab.
He was told that this particular house was 'way down the list' and that the opportunity to obtain it would have to wait until the city staff worked it's way to that one. Based on current staffing levels, etc. it would be a year or two. He was told he should check back later.
The house clearly needed cosmetics but did not look obviously structurally compromised. The rehabber/builder told me that in two years that might not be the case, and that even if it was still salvageable then, it would no doubt be more expensive to do so than if he started immediately. He pointed out some things that if not addressed now, would lead to bigger problems later.
He surmised that the city's added tax revenue from the two year interval (from a renovated property today vs. the same one done two years hence), could easily pay for the cost of additional inspectors/bureaucrats the city would have to hire.
Yes, time is often an issue. However, as it already in the ordinances to allow the city to repair as well as demolish, the initial small issues could just as easily be repaired and make the houses more desirable, not only for a potential owner but for the residents living around them. As to manpower, when HUD allows for the hiring of a person to do things like 106 reviews using HUD funds and the city of Jacksonville doesn't bother to do it, well, we are back at that leadership thing again.
Joe, I couldn't agree with you more. The City is taking a short-sighted and more costly path. Long-term, we all benefit from repairing early and maintaining these structures. The City's historic planning division is undertaking a review of the properties.
I drove around the areas with Ennis and most targeted for demolition are located in intact neighborhoods--meaning the housing stock is still there and most of the blocks have no vacant parcels. We need to prevent these neighborhoods from going the way of some others.
First, this bill should not have been passed. Secondly, anything remotely habitable should be put up for sale rather than demolition. Apparently the city government has way to much money sitting around doing nothing if you can afford to demolish all these buildings. Government always wants more and more power over the citizens. Government is supposed to be our servants, but it is our master now.
Thanks for providing the information. Some of these homes do look like they could be viable and it worry's me that this is so heavily weighted in the minority community. I would also like to hear of some plan to do more than leave a vacant lot that will quickly become a dump site. If you go into a neighborhood and see a bunch of vacant lots it isn't any more appealing than the abandoned houses. I also hope they are going to double check their list. Several of the homes don't fit the year that they show they were built and at least one looks completely different than the picture on google (2817 Market). We have a lot of homeless vets, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Fix up the homes that we can and give them to the vets for the sacrifices they made for us all.