There were two Riverside demolition requests on today's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting and I attended to support RAP in stopping the demolitions. Boy, was I glad I did!!!
When I arrived, Code Enforcement was speaking about demolishing the historic Springfield structure located at 439 East 1st Street as an emergency. This was not even on the Agenda! And they brought all the big guns: Kim Scott, Director of Regulatory Compliance, Bryan Mosier, Chief of Code Enforcement, Michael Chao, Inspector, Bruce Chauncey, Supervisor and Tom Goldsbury, Chief of Building Inspections. Apparently they were there to present this as a "potential emergency".
Tom Goldsbury stated the roof was in bad shape although he could not see it, the house was structurally insufficient, has years of settling, and anything can be stabilized.
Michael Chao stated the following:
- Code Enforcement has spoken with the owner who has no interest in the property whatsoever.
- There is an engineering report that states the structure should be demolished.
- Code Enforcement asked three general contractors bid the property in three ways: 1. Save, 2; Limited demo; 3. Complete demo.
- Hagar Construction Company did not bid on Option 1 or Option 2; the bid for Option 3 was $27,300.
- CORE Construction Company did not bid on Option 1 or Option 2; the bid for Option 3 was $37,286.
- Burkhalter Wrecking, Inc.'s bid on Option 1 was $126,500 (which included a complete restoration of the two story wood frame addition at the rear); Option 2 was $24,795; Option 3 was $39,140.
When I was able to speak, I asked the Commission where the HPC packet is because I didn't see it online. Chairman Barry Underwood confirmed it was a last minute addition to the Agenda. I stated that Jacksonville Ordinance requires that the "least intrusive measure" be used when dealing with historic properties. I suggested that the funds slated to destroy this property be used instead to stabilize it. I also asked that Code Enforcement work with people who are able to restore....i.e. Preservation SOS. I also suggested another engineering report from a more preservation-minded engineer.
Snipets from Kim Scott:
- This is an emergency and has deteriorated significantly since July.
- Code Enforcement does not mothball.
- Code Enforcement does not seek demolition on any property.
- People you give it to have to have the means to immediately renovate, not hold it until they get the funds.
- Code Enforcement doesn't do renovations.
- You have described mothballing which is not a function of Code Compliance. Talk to Mr. McEachin.
Bryan Mosier: Code Enforcement is acting under Chapter 518 of the ordinance code. Chapter 307 (historic section) is enforced by the Building Dept, not Code Enforcement.
Jennifer Mansfield suggested the City foreclose on their liens; the city attorney said they cannot foreclose on administrative liens, but only on those with cash layout. (I personally don't think this is the case. Bostwick Building??)
There was some discussion as to whether or not they needed to vote on the Certificate of Opinion; the City attorney said they must vote.
Jennifer Mansfield made a motion to remove the rear addition and secure the remainder of the property. The vote passed. Code Enforcement was not happy.
After the vote, Jennifer provided me with a copy of the packet presented to the Commissioners. What constitutes an emergency? A change that warrants immediate action (within 72 hours) to prevent harm to others. Well, in the packet is an email dated 09/25/15 at 1:58 PM (more than a month ago!) from Michael Chao to Autumn Martinage, Joel McEachin, Gary Kresel, Bryan Mosier and Devron Cody stating since July 13, 2015 "the structure has continued to deteriorate to the current condition where emergency action has been deemed necessary by MCCD." Autumn immediate replied immediately (same day at 3:26 PM) stating she went to the property and recommends "selective demolition of the rear porch/addition and see if the rest of the structure is still sound after that part is removed before proceeding with the complete demolition of the structure."
Yes, the rear of this structure needs to be removed. The entire structure does not. My last experience with Code Enforcement's appearance at an HPC meeting was in May, 2013 where they voted to request stabilization of the front porch of 129 East 2nd Street. The next day Code Enforcement had the bulldozers out demolishing the entire structure.
Why can't Code Enforcement spend the $27,000 to stabilize it instead of destroy it?????
This is sad. And if it is that bad, tear off the back and secure the rest.
At some point someone needs to let Code Enforcement know what "Least Intrusive" means
Code Enforcement's job is to follow the ordinance (and state law) which clearly states that in the case of historic properties, mitigating the safety issues REQUIRES that the city use the lightest touch available. In this case, as in many others, that means removing the rear addition.
The Commissioners have spoken! Kudos to them and especially Jennifer Mansfield.
And kudos to you Kim, for standing up for the houses.
QuoteBryan Mosier: Code Enforcement is acting under Chapter 518 of the ordinance code. Chapter 307 (historic section) is enforced by the Building Dept, not Code Enforcement.
Interesting that the new head of MCCD apparently has no idea what his and his departments job really is. Here is the section from 307 that Kim referred to and Mr. Mosier basically stated does not apply to them:
QuoteSec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In 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.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 17; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-408-E, § 2)
Editor's note—
Ordinance 2007-839-E, § 18, authorized updated department/division names pursuant to reorganization.
And here's a general statement from 307 as well:
Quote1.1.3The City of Jacksonville shall incorporate into its historic preservation ordinance, procedures for the review by the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, or any subsequent review body, of all plans that will physically alter the appearance of a designated site, property or historic district. This review will be required of all departments, agencies, and other authorities of the City or companies or contractors representing any department, agency or authority of the City performing work for the City
Please note that the basic charter for section 307, Historic Properties and Landmarks, requires that every department follow it's requirements. Then of course, section 307 must be followed by MCCD as it applies to them.
This is a common issue with Kimberly Scoot and her minions. They try to only follow the laws they decide meet their goals and often misquote the few laws they actually want to enforce. We know the bad management of this department has cost the city hundreds of thousands just in the last few years and we know a potential million or so more could be proven. When is the Mayor going to realize this and make the needed changes so that MCCD stops being the bully it is and actually becomes the department that helps the city and it's citizens like it is truly supposed to be doing?
QuoteSec. 518.103. - Applicability.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, if a structure sought to be regulated is a landmark or contributing structure located in a historic district, such regulatory efforts shall be tailored to have the least intensive impact on the structure while still furthering the intent of this Chapter.
Just to further state the lack of understanding and desire to follow the ordinances they themselves are charged to enforce, here is the same language about using the least intrusive methods on historic structures found in section 307 but in this case from section 518.
In addition, the ordinances give the right to MCCD to REPAIR as well as simply fine and demolish. It is policy not law the stops MCCD from do a simple repair or even mothballing a structure, both of which would save this city money over the policies of hindering being followed today.
Quote from: strider on October 29, 2015, 07:49:05 AM
Quote
This is a common issue with Kimberly Scoot and her minions. They try to only follow the laws they decide meet their goals and often misquote the few laws they actually want to enforce. We know the bad management of this department has cost the city hundreds of thousands just in the last few years and we know a potential million or so more could be proven. When is the Mayor going to realize this and make the needed changes so that MCCD stops being the bully it is and actually becomes the department that helps the city and it's citizens like it is truly supposed to be doing?
What are their goals? Are they trying to create work for themselves so they can justify keeping their job?
I wish I knew CCMJax...I wish I knew... :(
Code Enforcements goal is, and always has been, rather simple: Close cases. In a number of conversations in the past this came up as the way they measure success. Mothballing doesn't close the case. Demolition does. Unless this metric is replaced with something more meaningful, things will not change.
MCCD has filed a formal COA to demolish this home. 15-913 will be heard at the December 9, 2015 HPC meeting.
The owner is a now dissolved LLC. I attempted to contact the owner of the LLC (Clifton Higbee) and learned that sadly he passed away on November 20th. I'm waiting for someone to call me back regarding his estate.
We need to be at the December HPC meeting to oppose this demolition. Use the funds slated to destroy the entire structure to stabilize it. We must require City Employees to follow the LAW.
Apparently, the head of the historic planning department, Joel McEachin, has signed off on the request of MCCD to demolish the entire structure in spite of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation that the home be saved with the addition ONLY removed.
With the approval signed off by staff, it will make this week's meeting at HPC an interesting one. Will the commissioners also bow down to political pressure to destroy the very fabric of the historic district, the purpose of their existence? Or will they (as they have in the past) rise to the occasion?
Obviously, Code needs the HPC to sign off on this one. We wonder why. There are probably federal dollars involved somehow.
We've been fighting this hard for over 5 years now. We've been loud, (some say obnoxiously so), we've pleaded with everyone from DC to Tallahassee and back. We've been taken to the green room at city council and had sweet nothings whispered in our ears (and believe me, it turned out to be nothing after all). We've been called radical preservationists.
And when you realize that there isn't an ally to be had EVEN in the city's preservation department, it makes you want to say EFF THIS SHIT.
TEAR THE MOTHER DOWN.
TEAR THE FREAKING CITY DOWN FOR ALL I CARE.
...........................
Of course, that is what is suppose to happen, isn't it? We toss up our hands and surrender.
Well, that's not going to happen with us.
And let's hope it won't happen with the Historic Preservation Commissioners either.
Political pressure is always nasty. I hate it....means someone has some secret agenda somewhere. And it takes someone with huge "guts and nads" or someone who just doesn't care what happens to him/her to go against it.
That being said, I think (hope) that in this case, Joel's recommendation to approve will be ignored by the HPC. They have already VOTED in October to DENY DEMOLITION and REMOVE THE BACK PORCH AND STABILIZE. There will have to be some mighty good additional evidence presented to make them go back and change that vote now, even with Joel's "recommendation".
Sheclown, I too feel like giving up. I'm tired of fighting and tired of being drug through the mud all because I fight for preservation. But I WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING!!! And I don't think you will either. :) SAVE THE HOUSES!
There must be some sort of kickback going on here. No reason for a demo, especially an emergency. There needs to be some sort of penalty, such a jail time, hard labor or a high fine for this reckless behavior. There also should not be any 'last minute' agenda items of this nature. That should also be illegal.
Apparently, the owner of the property recently died as well, right before Thanksgiving.
Any idea who specifically is applying this pressure to demolish?
Are the Historic Preservation Commission subject to removal by the Mayor?
BTW, what ever happened with the Planning Commission members that he wanted to replace? I assume by now, it has been decided, but I obviously missed it.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 07, 2015, 04:28:52 PM
Any idea who specifically is applying this pressure to demolish?
Are the Historic Preservation Commission subject to removal by the Mayor?
BTW, what ever happened with the Planning Commission members that he wanted to replace? I assume by now, it has been decided, but I obviously missed it.
Certainly the mayor could remove the historic preservation commissioners if he chooses to do so. And that, of course, is a concern. On the other hand, bowing down to political pressure to demolish a sound structure in a Nationally Recognized Historic District would render the commissioners rather impotent. I can't imagine that it would sit very well with the Springfield community should the commissioners okay this demo while insisting on dictating the style of a neighboring front door five minutes later.
Commissioners, we are counting on you.
SAVE THE HOUSES
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/e7db1581-cca2-471b-83b9-22a790a22102.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/e7db1581-cca2-471b-83b9-22a790a22102.jpg.html)
Last night the Urban Core CPAC voted unanimously to oppose demolition and support the HPC's October recommendation to remove the back porch and stabilize the structure. In addition, Michelle Tappouni, SPAR Board President announced that SPAR supports the HPC's recommendation as well. Good job UC CPAC and SPAR!
SAVE THE HOUSES!
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/439%20E%201st%20Street/1st%20E%20439%20UC%20CPAC%20Letter%20Opposing%20Demolition%202015-12-08_zpssj2qtyib.jpg)
Interior photos of this structure....
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/439%20E%201st%20Street/20151208_160350_zpsmslqxbyf.jpg)
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/439%20E%201st%20Street/20151208_160030_zpsdf5nhah8.jpg)
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/439%20E%201st%20Street/20151208_155917_zps6myse81i.jpg)
Aerial view of the roof
(http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a474/kimpryor67/439%20E%201st%20Street/20151208_1504_zps5pbjhgle.jpg)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/436%20East%20first%20st.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/436%20East%20first%20st.jpg.html)
from the survey done in 1985.
Stephen, ask Alison about the appointed position the City is advertising for, you might find it interesting.
I also understand Bill Killingsworth is there.
Joel McEachin is going thru the staff report.
Angela Schiffinella just made a motion to approve staff recommendation to demolish!
Now that they have a motion, they open it for public hearing. Bryan Mosier, Acting Chief of MCCD is at the podium.
Schifanella is now asking Mosier why they don't take the lower bid of $24k to remove the back porch. Mosier is saying they don't want to take on that liability. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the contractor? Yes. But we don't want the house to fall on a child or something.
66 unsafe structures taken down in 2015 per MIchael Chao.
Barry Underwood asked if since the last time MCCD was here, has MCCD reached out to SPAR or anyone else about the property? Mosier: No.
Michelle Tappouni is up. Reading SPAR's statement into the record. Tom Goldsbury has moved himself up to the front row in an attempt to be the next speaker.
Barry Underwood just asked Michelle if the ED of SPAR could make financial decisions on behalf of the Board if they didn't meet. What??? Why is that relevant to this discussion???
Sheclown informed me that the HPC stood up to the pressure and voted unanimously to support their original recommendation to only take the badly deteriorated rear addition and stabilize the main house. This is good news, well good news to us preservationists, probably not so good news to MCCD and Ms Scott. The City had been willing to spend $37K to totally demolish the house. That would have ended up with a empty lot with $40K of liens and having a value in the foreseeable future of maybe $20 to $25K. This way they spend $24K and the house remains as a possible viable tax producer with a possible value of $25 to $30K.
I suspect that if the City stopped and rebid to people who knew something about these houses rather than just how to take an excavator to them, they could get a roof, the rear structurally fixed and give the area a real asset for less than the $37K they were willing to waste just tearing it down. Properties like this need to be taken and made attractive so they get sold and become tax producers but I'll take this save as a start.
A sincere, heartfelt THANK YOU to the Historic Preservation Commission tonight for doing what they are charged to do: SAVE THE HOUSES!
Nice work Kim and everyone else involved! Thank you Stephen for the entertaining play-by-play commentary.
I just got a call from Sheclown and the city is taking THE ENTIRE HOUSE DOWN as we speak. Apparently the City itself does not have to abide by the decisions of the HPC (which gave permission to take only the addition, NOT the entire contributing house). The City, by allowing the MCCD to walk all over the Historic Designation, is rendering Historic Preservation meaningless in Jacksonville.
Just a little while ago, a member of the HPC told us that there had been an appeal of the HPC decision, but now a member of Staff has informed us that there was no appeal ever filed. Typical Jacksonville BS. Meanwhile, Historic Preservation is slowly but surely being rendered meaningless.
Why do we have to keep being our own worst enemy?! Is there at least going to be something built here or is it going to stay an empty lot?
Quote from: UNFurbanist on March 08, 2016, 02:46:17 PM
Why do we have to keep being our own worst enemy?! Is there at least going to be something built here or is it going to stay an empty lot?
Reading thru the thread, it seems there will be tens of thousands of dollars in liens, so in all likelihood, no.
The only thing that is going to stop this nonsense is a lawsuit. Need to find someone with standing to sue.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/action%20news.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/action%20news.jpg.html)
Action News was there today.
Kim Pryor is on camera talking about this house.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/neighbors-upset-after-home-built-in-1900s-came-down/151188684
My understanding is that the City appealed the JHPC decision to only demolish the back and Council approved the appeal???
COJ's statement is:
"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."
Jesus.
I give up. It doesn't matter.
visit Baltimore...Jacksonville...whatever.
Lets destroy LaVilla. Lets neglect Hogans and McCoy creek.
because you know...progress.
Jesus.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 08, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
COJ's statement is:
"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."
Interesting how they did what they wanted to anyway. Sometimes I hate this city.
yet again, no accountability. Very sad.
Quote from: Kay on March 08, 2016, 08:43:03 PM
My understanding is that the City appealed the JHPC decision to only demolish the back and Council approved the appeal???
At this point in time, we do not believe so; however, our attorney would be very happy, no actually ecstatic, were that true because no one was properly notified.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 08, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
COJ's statement is:
"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."
When we asked the supervisor on site for the name of the engineer, we were told "I don't remember." Hopefully, there is a detailed engineer's report on file to back this up.
We, as preservationists in this city, need to have DETAILED engineering reports to examine. Not merely letters of opinion, but rather detailed explanations of why a structure is unsafe, with actual calculations and photos. Why do we have to accept anything less? Detailed engineering reports gives the public the information needed to feel satisfied with the decisions made regarding historic properties.
When asked why the entire structure had to be demolished, the supervisor said "the floor was wavy". Meanwhile, the excavator is sitting on the floor system waiting to finish the job.
Oh, and the floor system is holding it.
Quote from: Kay on March 08, 2016, 10:11:32 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 08, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
COJ's statement is:
"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."
Interesting how they did what they wanted to anyway. Sometimes I hate this city.
That is because there are no repercussions for what happens in Springfield. It is the way it is. We can make a stink about it, get a little air time on the local news and a few days/weeks later....back to biz as usual.
The only way to curtail this stuff is for everybody, I do mean everybody(not just 20 people) in the neighborhood to come together as one entity and get their shit together. Change laws. There has to be a landbank/nonprofit/preservation entity that all it does is buy/mothball/sell and fight for historic structures. We have to keep structures out of the hands of people who just don't care one way or another.
I fear we're too fragmented though, except on FF's
At least I got a couple dozen bricks out of this....
Quote from: sheclown on March 08, 2016, 06:14:06 PM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/action%20news.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/action%20news.jpg.html)
Action News was there today.
Kim Pryor is on camera talking about this house.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/neighbors-upset-after-home-built-in-1900s-came-down/151188684
I think Kim getting on the news helps raise public awareness. It is a good small step.
In the picture above, that wavy floor that was used as one reason that entire house had to go is supporting somewhere around 60,000 pounds. I was there yesterday and even with some of the piers missing, the crawl space was still intact.
Due to some of the issues recently with professional engineers and historic houses, perhaps a special course for them about historic structures and materials should be required prior to doing anything on a historic structure. Either that, or they need to look up the meaning of ethics. I hope the issue is the former but fear it is at least sometimes the latter.
Quote from: 02roadking on March 09, 2016, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: Kay on March 08, 2016, 10:11:32 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 08, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
COJ's statement is:
"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."
Interesting how they did what they wanted to anyway. Sometimes I hate this city.
That is because there are no repercussions for what happens in Springfield. It is the way it is. We can make a stink about it, get a little air time on the local news and a few days/weeks later....back to biz as usual.
The only way to curtail this stuff is for everybody, I do mean everybody(not just 20 people) in the neighborhood to come together as one entity and get their shit together. Change laws. There has to be a landbank/nonprofit/preservation entity that all it does is buy/mothball/sell and fight for historic structures. We have to keep structures out of the hands of people who just don't care one way or another.
I fear we're too fragmented though, except on FF's
At least I got a couple dozen bricks out of this....
Preservation SOS tries...we really do. We take the loss of these old gals personally as though they are a part of our family. We spend countless hours trying to find ways to save them. We fight and fight and fight long and hard and often times for the ones that no one else will fight for. We try to convince private owners as well as the City of Jacksonville to protect these structures. We work so hard for them because they are ALL important. We do the very best that we can do with all we've got: our voices and research skills and muscle and sweat equity and passion.
Unfortunately our very small, truly non-profit organization has absolutely no money. We are all volunteers who have separate full-time jobs. I've searched for grants to help. Of the grants I've found that we may qualify for, they all require matching funds....did I mention we have no money? I think we've done a tremendous job so far with the resources we have.
If we had the means, mark my word: we would scoop up every single one of these "ugly" gals and love and restore each and every one!
SAVE THE HOUSES!!
I know ya'll do Kim.
SAVE THE HOUSES
Quote from: strider on March 09, 2016, 12:54:39 PM
In the picture above, that wavy floor that was used as one reason that entire house had to go is supporting somewhere around 60,000 pounds. I was there yesterday and even with some of the piers missing, the crawl space was still intact.
Due to some of the issues recently with professional engineers and historic houses, perhaps a special course for them about historic structures and materials should be required prior to doing anything on a historic structure. Either that, or they need to look up the meaning of ethics. I hope the issue is the former but fear it is at least sometimes the latter.
As a structural engineer, I agree with your comment about a special course, or maybe better yet, a certificate to assess historic structures. We engineers have all sorts of certificates/designations that we can obtain in addition to the PE license. The two most popular for structural engineers in my experiences are LEED and Certified Threshold Inspector (in Florida) but I'm not aware of anything dealing specifically with historic structures. Something like Certified Historic Structure Inspector might be good name. And require any engineer doing an assessment on a historic structure to have this certification. Requirements might look like this . . .
1. Must have PE license
2. Must have X amount of years experience as a licensed PE
3. Must have X amount of years experience in assessing and inspecting historical structures
4. Must have completed X number of hours in continuing education credits in the assessment of historic structures (or must complete X course in the assessment of historic structures certified by the X board of engineers)
5. Must submit X number of references, etc.
If these assessments or "reports" were done by an engineer with this sort of certification, it may give the public a comfort level with the results whether they are what the preservationists want to hear or not. That comfort level clearly is not there now since everyone seems to be pointing fingers at the engineer saying it was his/her fault because nobody knows if they were really qualified to even be doing this assessment. I too am curious about why they couldn't come to a conclusion until the back portion was removed, so the comfort level is not there with me either.
Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test. I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit. Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation. I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.
Quote from: mbwright on March 10, 2016, 09:28:18 AM
Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test. I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit. Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation. I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.
It sounds like most people on this thread have dealt with mostly bad engineers. I'm not surprised when it comes to single family houses, they do not generate very large fees for engineers unless it's a multi-million dollar home. You get what you pay for, if you hire some guy working out of his house that's been let go from 3 or 4 companies, then you are probably not going to be pleased with the product or their knowledge. And to address your first sentence . . . if you are an experienced engineer that actually practices engineering on a daily basis on a variety of project types then you will possess a hell of a lot more knowledge than what is needed to pass the test.
Quote from: CCMjax on March 10, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: mbwright on March 10, 2016, 09:28:18 AM
Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test. I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit. Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation. I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.
It sounds like most people on this thread have dealt with mostly bad engineers. I'm not surprised when it comes to single family houses, they do not generate very large fees for engineers unless it's a multi-million dollar home. You get what you pay for, if you hire some guy working out of his house that's been let go from 3 or 4 companies, then you are probably not going to be pleased with the product or their knowledge. And to address your first sentence . . . if you are an experienced engineer that actually practices engineering on a daily basis on a variety of project types then you will possess a hell of a lot more knowledge than what is needed to pass the test.
As an example, I have three experiences with three different firms/ PE's that illustrate my issues with using one on a historic house except in very limited capacity. One was a case where the engineer obviously did not know the codes involving historic structures and insisted work needed to be done that was not required nor needed in any way. The difference was between the project being feasible or not. Which is a large reason Historic Structures are exempt from many of the code requirements. The second was with a engineer hired by MCCD to evaluate a house where the owner took out a corner of the first floor. Per the MCCD and the engineer, the back "addition" had to come off unfortunately it was not an addition, it was an enclosed porch under a continuous roof so "take the addition then see if the house was OK" was code to take the entire house. I'm the one who pointed up and said WTF? By the way, the house was easily repaired and still standing. The third issue was more recent. A potential client had a engineering "report" that stated the existing garage's roof structure had to be redesigned and rebuilt to support it's existing tile roof and to put a tile roof on the main house would require the design and installation of new structure to support it as it was obvious to the engineer it was never framed for a tile roof. The problem is that the house did have a tile roof up until 1986 (so the first 80 ish years) and the garage's roof was in great shape needing very little and shows no signs of being sway backed or hog bellied after 100 years plus indicating any issue with how it was framed. The main house roof also does not show signs of any structural issues.
The first was carelessness. Why bother to look up the real codes you need to deal with? The second was, well, let's just say the PE knew who approved their checks. The third I believe was a lack of understanding as to the differences in materials and construction as well as the codes.
Materials are actually becoming a big thing. Today's wood is literally not what wood used to be You can see proof of that in the 2014 codes. The code writers reduced spans and loading on structural wood joists, etc. due to the decreasing strength being found today compared to perhaps even ten years ago. The old is much stronger and that is why these old girls are still here often after decades of neglect.
Which brings us back to the fact that no engineer should be able to walk around a historic house for a few minutes and say it needs to come down unless it is so bad it is falling down around him already. This house on 1st was far from that point.
I just uploaded the video of the conversation I had with the on-site Code Enforcement officer during the demolition. It's a little difficult to hear at times, and the video is a little dark in places, but I think everyone will get the idea.
https://youtu.be/iSXDnHpOwPU (https://youtu.be/iSXDnHpOwPU)
And the sad thing is that this guy seems to really believe what he was told, without question. I'm sure there is a very detailed engineering report that support the said decision.
Quote from: mbwright on March 11, 2016, 08:18:43 AM
I'm sure there is a very detailed engineering report that support the said decision.
This was facetious....right?
yep!! Full record of accountability. ;D
My understanding is they went to remove the porch and after doing so discovered more damage to the house? Pardon the short version.
Did they use that excavator to remove the porch? If so that may be cause of the damage. A two man crew with basic tools would be much more cost effective and less intrusive to the existing structure. The thought of snatching a porch off of a house with heavy equipment makes me cringe. Unless of course the intent was to cause damage. Then the excavator would be right where you want it.
You got it. You do not take a excavator to just remove the enclosed rear porch and intend to save the main house. The estimates for the removal of the porch and the stabilization was $24,000.00. The complete demo was $34,000.00. The reason it was higher per SF for the porch only demo was the time it would take to do the selective demolition properly. The difference to us taxpayers was now the property is so contaminated with the liens it will sit for many years to come while by saving the house, there was a reasonable chance it could have been sold and rehabbed into tax producing property again. The tax payers lost. Wonder who won then?
24K seems pretty high for a porch demo/stabilization. I'm no expert, but you don't use a sledgehammer to hammer a tack without collateral damage.
I just got told that per the permit to demolish the house that was pulled today, the total cost was $50,000.00. If this was not an emergency, as evidence by the COA issues, then the permit needed to be obtained prior to the demolition and as it is over $2,500.00, how do they get around the Notice of Commencement laws?
Quote from: strider on March 15, 2016, 01:50:46 PM
I just got told that per the permit to demolish the house that was pulled today, the total cost was $50,000.00. If this was not an emergency, as evidence by the COA issues, then the permit needed to be obtained prior to the demolition and as it is over $2,500.00, how do they get around the Notice of Commencement laws?
I don't think the rules apply to this crowd.
Quote from: strider on March 15, 2016, 01:50:46 PM
I just got told that per the permit to demolish the house that was pulled today, the total cost was $50,000.00. If this was not an emergency, as evidence by the COA issues, then the permit needed to be obtained prior to the demolition and as it is over $2,500.00, how do they get around the Notice of Commencement laws?
Strider, according to the demo permit pulled yesterday, the contractor was ONCE AGAIN Michael Lloyd Hauling and the cost of the job was $50,000. I was also told by a member of the Environmental Quality Division the day of the demo (I called) that it was taken as an emergency. They also did not wait the required 10 days after submitting the Asbestos Notification (hence the emergency??)
And to answer bobsim's question: Yes, they used the excavator to remove the back porch....
If they are justifying some of their actions by calling it an emergency then watch the money. That 50K can't be federal funds in any way if it was declared an emergency.
Because COJ has lots of extra money laying around to use for for these sorts of emergencies, that are of great risk to the entire county. (enter snarky emoji here) I'm obviously in the wrong business, if they can get 50K for a little cleanup. Was there a permit and appropriate bid for the porch to begin with? If I was a demo guy, I would be fighting these as unfair/favortism. So much is wrong with this whole process.
$50,000 would have gone a loooooong way in RESTORING this property. Or heck, I could mothball 6 or 7 houses with that money!
QuoteCity of Jacksonville Ordinance Code
Chapter 518, Jacksonville Property and Safety Maintenance Code
Part 1. - General Provisions
Subpart A. - Title and Scope
Sec. 518.102. - Legislative intent and findings.
(c)There is a need to create a mechanism to bring most abandoned properties into productivity. Abandoned properties constitute a burden on city's resources and a waste of valuable city's assets. The city has concluded that the rehabilitation of abandoned or neglected properties is an important city objective.
Really?? Could have fooled me... Perhaps someone needs to inform Code Enforcement of this law. This ordinance does not mention demolition...but rehabilitation. Also notice that it is not specific to Historic structures; it includes ALL structures.
QuoteChapter 518, Jacksonville Property and Safety Maintenance Code
Part 1. - General Provisions
Subpart A. - Title and Scope
Sec. 518.103. - Applicability.
(e)Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, if a structure sought to be regulated is a landmark or contributing structure located in a historic district, such regulatory efforts shall be tailored to have the least intensive impact on the structure while still furthering the intent of this Chapter.
Least intensive impact certainly does not mean use an excavator to remove a back porch. My interpretation of "least intensive impact" for this structure is carefully remove the back porch in a manner that does not damage the remaining structure, then stabilize the remaining structure.
QuoteCity of Jacksonville Ordinance Code
Chapter 518, Jacksonville Property and Safety Maintenance Code
Part 1. - General Provisions
Subpart C. - Enforcement Authority
Sec. 518.121. - Enforcement Officer.
(a) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Chief to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. The Chief is authorized to interpret this Chapter and to promulgate such rules in conformity to this Chapter as he deems necessary to implement the requirements and intent hereof, subject to the appeal process provided in Parts Two, Three and Four. The Chief is authorized to delegate to subordinate employees any authority and duty under this Chapter and such delegated employees shall have full authority to act in behalf of the Chief. All delegation of authority and duty shall be consistent with the qualifications required in the approved job descriptions of subordinates.
The Chief can interpret our laws in any way he or she wishes...to meet whatever agenda he or she may have...to DESTROY our historic structures.
Municipal Code Compliance forces citizens to abide by Chapter 518 of Jacksonville's ordinance code. Sometimes they cause harm to citizens with their very subjective "interpretation" of violations. Who forces Municipal Code Compliance to abide by Jacksonville's laws, including Chapter 518???
What is the penalty for violating these laws? Who should/does enforce them?
Quote from: mbwright on March 17, 2016, 03:52:34 PM
What is the penalty for violating these laws? Who should/does enforce them?
I wish I knew....