Metro Jacksonville

QuoteI completely understand that we are all striving to make Springfield a vibrant family community and boarding houses are what is standing in the way of that.

The above quote is from the SPAR forum thread about a possible low density group care home on Boulevard.  The thread on Metrojax is titled “Help”.  This statement was made by a young woman who is a fairly recent resident in Historic Springfield and so I believe her opinion is the result of what I am going to call the “SPAR Council Company Line”. 

It is an interesting statement...one we have heard many times....but we need to ask: Can someone provide the proof of that?  Can any of you really define "boarding house" , "Rooming house",  "Halfway House",  "Bed and Breakfast",  "Extended stay motel" ,"Group Care Home",  "ACLF",  "Residential Treatment Facility" , “Sober Living Facility” and "Community Residential Home"? How do they differ and what do they have in common?  Do you know the history of boarding houses and rooming houses and how it relates to Springfield?  Do you know the positives derived from having boarding houses and such through the years?  How and why did it change from a positive to a negative, if it in fact did? 

Can we find proof of what either caused the decline of Springfield or has hindered it’s resurgence by looking at the various groups and programs that came before say 1998? Were the programs used in Springfield the same as those used in places like Savannah?  Did Savannah have the same issues with what we call “Special Uses” and what did they do about them? What are the prejudices against the special uses and are they unfounded or based on fact?

Why do people live in a rooming house?  Why a boarding house?  Have the reasons changed from say 1909 to today?  If so, why and in what ways?

Can single men or women live in and be part of a "vibrant family community"?  Do you have to be rich to do so or can you be poor?  If you only make minimum wage part time, can you afford an apartment? If so, what would it be like?  Would a single room be nicer and better?  With the current economic conditions,  does having boarding houses and rooming houses make sense again? 

If the metro edge study indicates that 44% of the residents make less than 15K per year, can those who have families but are low income  be part of the "Vibrant Family Community" you want?  Or do they not make enough to participate? 

To have equal sharing of the “homeless and poor problem” and the facilities that help them, does that mean that some of the rich must move over to Evergreen?  To Moncrief?  Doesn’t it seems logical that if you require the poor to move on, then some of the rich must move as well to keep things balanced? 

Why are the facilities here in the urban core and not on , say, the Southside?  Why don’t these facilities move and build elsewhere?  Is there a valid reason they are here and remain here?  Are there in fact any facilities in the other areas of town and are they successful? Would it make more sense to work with the various facilities to insure that they are more of a positive to the community rather than just trying to or at least hoping to eliminate them?

These are just a few of the questions that must be addressed before you can make statements like the one quoted.  If this results in a discussion, much of it will be a rehash of things discussed before, but as this issue is one that continually comes up and so much of what is said is far from factual, perhaps something positive can be gleamed by some and therefore, we can move closer to a better solution to the issue. 

having lived in various areas of this state, particularly south florida for a number of years I will say this in regard to your statement:  The transient nature of boarding houses foster a suspicion by the property owners.

Those who have planted roots by purchasing property in an area have a vested interest in the betterment of that area.  When I lived in South Florida I was a renter.  I could move at will.  I mostly lived in apartment buildings, but did live in south beach for a while in an old house that a couple of friends rented.  The neighborhood was mostly rental, so nobody really knew each other as people were constantly moving in and moving out.  I found Neptune Beach to be a bit different.  It had both rentals and owners.  The owners had been there and were generally not interested in getting to know the renters because they knew that eventually they'd move and they'd just have to start the entire 'hey neighbor' all over again.  During my time in Neptune Beach I will say that there were way more problems due to the large number of rentals than was happening just down the street in old atlantic beach where some of my friends lived. 

So, in my opinion, the prevalence of boarding houses in a neighborhood brings a transient element to the neighborhood.  The owner/neighbors then become suspicious of strangers and reluctant to get to know new people which diminishes the neighborhood feeling and ultimately the neighborhood deteriorates.

And, while there are the example of the good boarding house owner who rents to decent hardworking people and takes care of his rental, there are many many examples of the opposite, an absentee owner who only cares about the monthly rent could care less about the upkeep, the type of renter, the yard etc.. 

Lastly, why don't these boarding house owners want to live in the neighborhood in which they operate their business?  hmmmm nope me thinks they'd rather enjoy the quietness of a neighborhood that is less transient and they'd much rather play the martyr and demonize all those meany neighborhood residents who dare to speak against the poor downtrodden or drug and alcohol addicted that they are so magnanimously helping.  Blech.

You hit it on the head Karl! You're right Stephen, they do. I don't want a house with 5 college kids next to me any more than I want one with 5 vietnam vets.

Yes, brilliant assessment. Its only one or two of us pushing all of this.

Quote from: Deuce on July 30, 2009, 09:57:22 AM
You hit it on the head Karl! You're right Stephen, they do. I don't want a house with 5 college kids next to me any more than I want one with 5 vietnam vets.

Oh yeah! We were loved in the 1960's and 70's too, 56,000 boys died in Vietnam (a great deal of it because we couldn't shoot back) a situation certain to mess up your brain for life. It's called PTSD for a reason, but I guess we soldier on as an army without a home...So Springfielders, everyone join in a sing!

The Vietnam Song by Country Joe and the Fish

Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Now you can go out and get those reds
'Cause the only good commie is the one that's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, and don't hesitate
To send your sons off before it's too late.
And you can be the first ones in your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die

OCKLAWAHA

Maybe we can sit down and talk about it over a few beers...just like Obama.

Stephen, will you bring the beer?  

Nevermind.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2009, 12:19:03 PM
The present campaign however, has nothing to do with that old rightful crusade.  Its just a business deal apparently gone sour over time.

I said I would never ask for clarification again but here I go and hoping it doesn't result in a diatribe.

Stephen, if the business deal you are referring to is between downtownparks and strider then you are mistaken in your assessment if you believe that is what MY campaign is about. Karl P expressed my concerns very well. I do not wish to see an onslaught and resurgence of slumlords. I'm still on that "old rightful crusade."

Some say strider's properties are the gold standard of property mgmt. That doesn't mean the next 10 businesses who come in will hold to the same standard. You can argue that I can't guarantee the person who buys the house next to me will be of high moral fortitude either. True, but having put a chunk of change (relevant to their income) into their home, they are far more likely to take pride in their property and surroundings. The transient population of renters, etc have proven time and time again that left to their own devices the majority do not. We have to just HOPE that mgmt is on top of things. If they aren't, who suffers? Not the manager who doesn't live near the property.

I THINK we agree that we don't want SPR to go down that path again. We disagree that this whole discussion is because of one or two personal crusades...IF that is what you are saying.

well, I have an interesting take on this...perhaps boarding houses just saved this little neighborhood...made these houses economically viable when nothing else would work.  Think about Springfield, I read 95% of the buildings were historic as opposed to quite a smaller percentage of them in Riverside.  That is because it was Jacksonville's dumping ground, but that was also its saving Grace.  If it had been economically viable to build a 70s apartment complex in the middle of Pearl Street, it would have happened.

We have a relative who was one of the first women to get a degree from the University of Wisconsin .  She eventually married and her husband did not think it was proper for a woman to go to college (even though he obviously thought his wife turned out ok) and so forbade his wife to send his daughter off to school.  His wife, our great, great aunt, left him, bought a large home in the college town and earned enough to live and send a daughter to school by running a proper boarding house.  After all, it was one of the few OK ways for a single or widowed woman to earn a living. 

I’m sure that some people here in Jacksonville have relatives that made their living with rooming houses and boarding houses and would take great offence at being lumped in with the slumlords some of you are talking about.  Did you know that Ms. Lucy, the past owner of one of the remaining rooming houses, was born in that house and then, eighty years later, ended her days there. She was know as running a tight ship. Not exactly the "absentee" landlord you are talking about. She kept a picture taken from her porch of JFK riding down Main Street in a convertible on her wall. 

Defend me, blast me, I really do not care, but go find the answers to some of the questions.  You will be surprised at what you learn and what is really the truth.  (PS- the great, great aunt and her husband got back together after the daughter finished college.)

I actually don't disagree with you at all Sheclown. as many as we lost, It could have been a lot worse. I dont know that I can honestly celebrate the human carnage left in the wake of the slumlords, with the people living in fear from the drug dealers and thieves, but had they not been economically viable, they would have been torn down.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2009, 02:38:07 PM
The fine lines of distinction, I think, have been deliberately blurred in such a way that ends up demonizing a good neighbor:  Strider.

umm yeah, he's not a neighbor to any of us.  He's no more a neighbor than Jim Brewer or Chris Hionedis, so save your sanctimony please.

and Strider, your story was so heartfelt I almost shed a tear......almost.  So your great aunt lived in and ran a "proper" boarding house, congrats, that must make you proud.  But she lived there making it her home too, something that is very rare in the boarding house industry, but hey I'm preaching to the choir right?

perhaps if strider and his wife sheclown weren't such boarding house advocates us residents of SPR wouldn't feel so compelled to call the pot black.

Hold on people. Who is making these generalizations? Did anyone say they are all lumped together? No. YOU are doing that. But for every good landlord there are often 10 slumlords. So please quit the accusatory grand sweeping. I have a very good friend who is one of the best landlords I know. Her tenants love her and they are also aware of every lousy slumlord they've had before her.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2009, 03:31:44 PM
And Karl, maybe if they werent having to unfairly defend themselves all the time, they wouldnt be such 'advocates'

no quite the contrary, if they weren't in the boarding house business they wouldn't be such advocates.  They've kinda got a monetary interest in boarding houses don'tcha think? 

Before you can complain about what the boarding houses, ETC.  have done to Springfield, you need to know what they were all about.  That is the point of my earlier story - to show that they were once a very acceptable way to make a living and they were a very acceptable and needed way to live.

Many of you own homes that at some point in time were converted from single family to a duplex or even a triplex or quad.  Do you know when it was done?  The vast majority, based on what I know, were converted to at least a duplex in the 'teens.  About the time WWI geared up.  Probably in response to a housing shortage.  Then in the late thirties, early forties, many of them were cut up even further.  Again, as WWII geared up at the end of the depression, there was a housing shortage.  I suppose you could blame it on the greed of the slumlords, but as Springfield was hardly a slum at those times, it would be a big stretch.

Let’s back up a moment.  Why were rooming houses, and more likely, boarding houses needed so much?  First, you do know the difference, right?  A rooming house traditionally provides you with a room, most likely a common bathroom (down the hall), all for a modest daily or weekly charge.  A Boarding house, on the other hand, provided, well, the same exact thing.  Except that the owner or owner’s wife cooked for you.  At one table, normally, just like a family.  Imagine that.

Why were boarding houses so popular?  Well, Mc Donald’s wasn’t around until the sixties basically, so where could the good, single men who hadn’t a clue how to cook supposed to go for the greasy hamburger? At the turn of the century,  it was very common for single young men to live in a boarding house, especially in the smaller towns and cities, which Jacksonville was certainly one of at the time. It was sort of like still being part of a family yet sort of still independent. Why In Springfield?  Well, along about the same time, the car was beginning to be common place, public transportation was expanding and it became more fashionable for the more well to do to move on out to the ‘burbs…which was Riverside along about then.  So, yes, there were a lot of large houses available for the right money.   It was also the urban core and downtown was thriving then.  A very desirable place to live if you were among the newly forming middle class and were young at heart.

As we move forward in time, the role of the boarding house and rooming house began to change.  I would imagine that by the forties, it was mostly single men who were here for the work the shipyards and warehouses provided.  I also know the even into the nineties at least one rooming house owner specialized in the merchant marines.  Think of the fact that a seaman would be out to sea the majority of the time, but like most people, needed a place to keep stuff and to live when he was in his home port.  A rooming house was idea.  Very affordable and far more roomier than his place on the freighter.  Ever watch an old movie where the fairly well to do couple had a room in a nice hotel with the bathroom down the hall. ?  It was very common then and still is in many areas of the european countries.  Some of those old hotels were actually what we would call a rooming house today.


OK, enough for now.  You can now go back to bashing me and mine if you like.  I do find it somewhat amusing.  It’s interesting too see someone’s true colors.  And Ocklawaha  - thanks for the song, it’s been a long time since I "heard" that!

Joe, that is a wonderful trip down memory lane. Back to what many refer to as the time of innocence. Unfortunately we are no longer a country of innocence and it isn't always the war widow renting to the GI just back from the good fight. Many rooming houses and boarding houses turned into the sleaziest, nastiest drug havens possible. If this is truly what you think they were in the not as distant past as the Disneyesque picture you painted, I'll tell you about the house we bought. Where every room had a hasp & lock, the water was cut off yet no one stopped using the toilet. When the bowl filled they used the tank. For at least the first year people walked by telling us about what a drug infested at-home abortion lovely little home we had. THAT is the rooming house neighborhood we do not want to turn back into.

Yes, I remember those places.  There were several "water-only" crack houses around.  No electricity, only water.  I've cleaned up after a few myself.  The problem was, most evidently, with the crack and the cops, not to mention the building safety department.

You don't shut down all hotels because Phillip's Highway is teaming with prostitution and drug activity, or all convenience stores because some of them are selling crack under the counter.

The demonizing of boarding houses and consequent country-wide out-zoning of them, has probably done more to increase homelessness in this country than any other factor. 

Just my, unpopular, opinion.

I think we managed to get to the end of the forties at my last post.  The truth is, Springfield, while it was losing some of it's luster by the fifties, was still a pretty exclusive community in some ways.  Did you know that into the late sixties, even young African American boys were not "allowed" to ride their bikes through Springfield on their way to the ball parks that they were "allowed" to play at?

People were still putting money into their houses in Springfield.  Remember hearing about the "chicken wire man"?  All that really "nice" stucco? It was, I believe, the fifties that the decline of most urban areas began.  Certainly by the mid sixties, what some call "white flight" was in progress.  The middle and upper middle classes that once liked the urban core were taking off for Arlington, the Southside and even just further up on Main.  As these people moved out, areas like Springfield became less and less desirable and so the values began dropping.  I believe that began and lead to the "era of the slumlord" so many of you wish to bring up. As the area's wealth went elsewhere, the urban core began to crumble.  The seventies saw many of the larger department stores and other businesses abandon the urban setting for the new malls and strip plazas of the era.  This depressed housing values and as Springfield became more affordable, the poor moved on in.  They had no choice really. 

Rooming houses became just an affordable place to crash.  The seventies and into the eighties saw the drug problem grow country wide. The local law enforcement, unable to stop the spread of drugs and prostitution often just "contained" it.  Many of us remember being told by the police that if we didn't like the crime, we shouldn't be here.  Springfield became one of those "containers".  All of this depressed values even more.  Do you know anyone who bought in Springfield in the Eighties and the problems they faced just purchasing a home here? No bank wanted to even consider loaning money on a house in Springfield. Few Realtors ventured here as well.

It should also be noted that in the eighties, SPAR and the city had a program to revitalize Springfield.  Experts from the Savannah revitalization came down and offered their advise on how to do it.  SPAR was told to be successful, the money being brought in had to be spread around to everyone.  The landlords as well as the single family home owner.  SPAR did not listen.  The program was offered for only the people they liked - the home owner.  So a home owner would get the funds to fix their house that had a rental on either side.  The landlords couldn't beg the funds to fix theirs so the revitalization was set up to fail.  Of course, the landlords got blamed for this program's failure as they were just being greedy and so refused to spend money on their houses. The truth often was that there was no money available and without the special help that was being offered to the home owner, it just wasn't practical either. 

By the late eighties, things had gotten so bad that even the rooming houses were closing.  Many of the "water only" houses were actually closed houses ... squatters could turn the water on themselves illegally so they had water and no electric. By the beginning of the nineties, crack had a good hold on many urban areas.  Even the good landlords were having trouble keeping up with the damage being done to their houses.  If the landlord was one that didn't care, and there were several, the houses really suffered.

Basically, it wasn't the rooming houses that brought Springfield down, they suffered as the community suffered and their decline became just one of the symptoms of the disease of urban blight that brought many once flourishing urban communities down.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2009, 11:25:57 PM
No one wants those days back nvrenuf.

But people living in a boarding house does not have to equal ghetto.

You're right about that Stephendare.  You stated your Aunt Ruby owned two boarding houses on Duval in the 60's; well, my Mother, before she came and got me from my Grandmother, lived in a rooming house at 817 West Duval Street a half block from Davis.  Her room was neat, clean, well wall papered and very nice.  We had to share a bathroom back in the day but back then people were respectful of each other and bleached out the tub and cleaned the bathroom after each use.  I don't think there are too many rooming houses left in cities let alone Jacksonville these days.  I know rooming houses were still going on in Springfield when I left Jax in 1995.

Rooming houses, back in the day, were for people starting out families, single people, and people who could not afford houses, but they were kept very nice and in good shape back then.

Heights Unknown

Any of you blue blood patriots ever heard of the Peterson's Boarding House? Just another townhouse sandwiched in the middle of a great American City. Rooms, well some of them anyway, the size of two walk in closets. Slumlords! Misfits! Maybe even red eyed, pencil necked, Vietnam Vets! War trash!

I would agree, except this is where President Lincoln was carried to his death bed. The room and bed were so small that he didn't fit the bed and his feet hung over the end. The entire US Government filed through that place and it still stands today, across from Fords Theater. So are all rooming houses bad? Guess that depends on which end of the Dixiecup you drink from.

Me? Hell, I'm unreconstructed AND a Vietnam Vet, so I'll lay my roses on John Booths Grave, thank you very much!

If only those older rooming houses in Jacksonville could speak, then they too would "Belong to the ages..."

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: sheclown on July 31, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
You don't shut down all hotels because Phillip's Highway is teaming with prostitution and drug activity, or all convenience stores because some of them are selling crack under the counter.

True, but you probably also don't open 20 more pay-by-the-hour hotels on Phillips Hwy if you have any hope of revitalizing it. I don't recall anyone suggesting closing all boarding/rooming houses. Just asking that this 1 square mile area get a break. And I would think it was a shitty economy and overseas outsourcing that lead to more homelessness than any other factor. That's my obviously unpopular opinion.

QuoteThe middle and upper middle classes that once liked the urban core were taking off for Arlington, the Southside and even just further up on Main.  As these people moved out, areas like Springfield became less and less desirable and so the values began dropping.  I believe that began and lead to the "era of the slumlord" so many of you wish to bring up. As the area's wealth went elsewhere, the urban core began to crumble.

Strider, I'm still trying to follow your line of thought on what destroyed Springfield because I really would like to know so it isn't repeated. If I'm reading these statements correctly, you are saying it was mid to upper classes leaving and the poor coming in that that led to its demise? Is that what you are saying? Poor people make an area crumble?? Following that logic it certainly wouldn't make sense to add even more low-income multi-unit buildings and thereby increasing the number of poor people in a compacted location which would then further add to the decline.

I think everyone wants a simple reason for why things happen.  Like let's blame the homeless or boarding houses for the decline of Springfield.  The truth is seldom simple.  In just my few simple posts, we have touched on:

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs.
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core
3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable.
4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.
5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.
6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds.
7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes.
8 ) lack of functional infra-structure. 
9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values.

So, a quick list of 9 things that all contribute to the decline of a community.  Some would add to this list the rooming houses and such but they are actually covered by the above as they are a symptom not a cause.  Springfield is currently a primarily low income neighborhood.  It has a long way to go to be what many here hope it will be. It takes working together, not one faction against the other, to reverse the process.

Quote from: strider on August 02, 2009, 08:33:28 AM
Springfield is currently a primarily low income neighborhood.  It has a long way to go to be what many here hope it will be.

Ohhhh...be careful there Strider! You're in dangerous waters.

I said that same exact thing on here before, and the thread blew up into 10 pages of bashing poor ole' Chris for being a 'slumlord' and an 'elitist' and 'part of the problem' and I can't remember what all else, but none of it was particularly complimentary.

Some people really take their Springfield seriously. Which is good for the neighborhood, no doubt. But I couldn't agree with you more that there's some ignoring of reality going on here. I think some folks have a hard time wrapping their head around the issues that are endemic, like the rampant poverty running through the area.

That type of thing is not solvable with paint and plaster, or by calling JSO and code enforcement. There's really not much that a small group of individuals (or even a large one) can do about it. I give them credit for trying their best, but I think they fall into the trap of blaming things that they just plain don't like, but which aren't really the problem.

Rooming houses are easy to vilify, and the same thing with the "beer and cigs" corner stores that they all hate. There was an 8 page thread on here awhile ago, where people were trashing the BP station for selling rolling papers, malt liquor, those "rose" things, etc., etc. I pointed out then, that businesses only adapt to their market, not vice-versa.

The real threat to Springfield isn't any of the stuff people worry about, the biggest problem is actually COJ itself. It's getting to the point where every other lot is going to be vacant and growing weeds. They have demolished hundreds of historic structures that should have been saved, and those aren't coming back. Ever.

Say what you will about rooming houses, but the truth is those are probably still standing because they found a profitable use in an area where that's tough to do. Otherwise, many would've been demolished along with the 1/3rd or more of the neighborhood that's already been bulldozed. I do think Springfield will eventually turn around, but that's just a matter of time. How much time, nobody knows.

People should devote their efforts to ensuring that there will be anything left by the time that happens, rather than targeting landlords and business owners who have had no choice but to adapt to their market environment. When that market segment moves on, so will they. In the meantime, much of what is historic in this historic district has been lost. Enough fiddling while Rome burns. I heard there's another demo scheduled for next week.

Stephen, did your family members tell you why they moved? If it was for racist reasons don't be embarrased to say so. I have racists in my family too, I just choose not to agree with them.

Chris, to be honest this is one of the most flattering posts I've ever seen you make about Springfield. I would suspect you are so quickly attacked because you tend more toward the 'its a slum and always will be' comments. And we just vehemently disagree with you. :) This time you said you see hope, with time. We have hope too and it is extremely frustrating when others say there is none.

Yes, we would prefer to keep values high for the exact reasons Strider is explaining above. For me, not so much to keep money in my pocket, but to keep my neighborhood from a backward slide. And yes I personally do hope all the things that keep values down or cause them to go in that direction eventually leave. I don't care if the hookers were here before me, I will continue to make it as difficult as possible for them to continue doing business near my home.

Strider, which revitalization funds are you referring to in #6?

Nvrenuf - I also referred to it in my post (#22) earlier -  the eighties when the experts from Savannah said the funds must go to everyone, not just who you like. In other words, the landlords needed the help as well as the single family home owners.  If you exclude a group, then you are depending on the market values to rise enough that the rentals get sold and then fixed up.  That didn't happen in the eighties so when the homeowner fixed their house up and the landlords didn't because they didn't have the money, the program failed as the values never got high enough.

If we look at what has happened since, the "special uses" were still excluded but as the properties values got high enough, the houses either got sold and then fixed or the landlords fixed them themselves to be sold or as investments. Remember that in 2000 there were about 40ish "special uses, today 11.  The issues we now face is one of falling values and the lack of investor capital.  IE, money for fixing these houses is hard to come by.  It doesn't bode well.

Many think that the rooming houses are a gold mine.  Not true.  It took a lot of money to just pay expenses.  Those of you who "do the math" forget about things like vacancy rates, getting stiffed and the very high expense costs.  Then add maintenance, higher taxes, and lately, all those pesky fees. If the rooming house business had actually been all that great, none of us would have found those old empty ones.  At some point, the costs got higher than it was worth and the house closed down.  Squatters often moved in showing that there was a housing need but the business of renting rooms couldn't often survive. Of course, some landlords were truly slumlords and took advantage of their renters.  To listen to some on this forum, it was every single landlord that ever had a house in the urban core.  Common sense tells those of us who can think for themselves that it was a very few.  Most simply did what they could.

Today, we still have acceptable rooming houses of sorts.  They are called bed and breakfasts.  Part of the difference is private baths rather than shared.  That is a change dictated by current societies dislike of sharing the bath rather than simple economics. While some have criticized what a rooming house charges, no one says anything about what a bed and breakfast or even a extended stay hotel charges.  I happen to know that in Springfield it can be a decent clean room and shared bath for 60.00 a week.  Much less than what a B&B is per day.  Even one of the halfway houses can be had for 133.00 per week.  3 meals included.  When you try to do the math, remember that it is x number of guys showering, washing cloths, cooking (or cooking for x number of guys) and everyone of them has a microwave, a TV, DVD player, ETC.  Expenses are high....JEA loves them!

I am not advocating a return of all the rooming houses.  But perhaps something in between is OK and can serve both the needs of the renters and the community.

Stephen, I have read about the axe handle riots, are these the riots that you are referring to?

Being a black man, I am embarrassed by the actions of some of my relatives during the morning shift before my watch.  I was taught to stay away from white people and that they hated me, which in general was true during those times, but was not altogether true for "all" white people. No there was and is nothing I can do to change people's behaviors, emotions, and attitudes during those days, but I will never, ever condone my relatives' behavior towards whites and am apologetic to any White Americans they may have disrespected.

When I went to my first integrated school in Sarasota, FL, I found out that not all people (White Americans) felt that way about blacks, that is, racist.  And it rings true through to the present.

As for boarding houses in Springfield, of which there were many when I lived in Jax, boarding houses are not the reason for increases in crime, deterioration of the neighborhood, etc.  There are true, hard down hard working Americans who lived and still live in boarding houses.  The wrong choices of the people in those neighborhoods, including Springfield, is the reason why those neighborhoods decline, deteriorate, etc.  I've seen low middle class to poor neighborhoods in Jax and other cities where the yards are kept up, there is very little crime, and people watch out for each other. 

People's wrong choices, on a wide swath scale, will help to decline that area or neighborhood contributing to the crime, poverty, drugs, and other problems that will decimate it.

Heights Unknown

Boarding houses, per say may not be the root of what brings a neighborhood down, but it usually doesn't help. There's a difference between renters and boarding houses, which generally means shorter term stays, and generally aren't all that interested in maintaining a nicely cut lawn, picking up trash, etc. These folks, for the most part are transients with no long term goal or investment in the neighborhood. Yes, there's exceptions to each rule, but boarding houses are for the most part, temporary housing for someone.

IF a bed and breakfast opens in Springfield, will you complain about it?  Yet, it is basically the same thing...transient housing.

Often, temporary housing is needed for workers in a good economy, sometimes just to have a roof over one's head in bad times.  Either way, just about every transient person is a potential permanent resident. And they spend at least some of their hard earned money right here locally.  As times and the economy changes, the roll of rooming houses and boarding houses has and will continue to change.  How they are managed is the difference, like just about any business, between a good one and a bad one. You want a nice, economical place for people to live as apposed to a flop house.  Communication is key then as just saying all of them are bad and must go fuels the problem and leads the community down the wrong path.

Responding to the original post - yes, I think boarding houses are a problem. I do support a free marketplace, so I support the boarding house's right to exist. It does serve a clear function within the market. However, that doesn't mean that I refuse to acknowledge the inherent problems associated with them.

Even a poorly maintained house or apartment building can destroy neighboring property values. Something as simple as a slovenly neighbor makes a big difference.

Now, think about the function of a boarding house. Their (legitimate) purpose is to provide housing for people who (for whatever good or bad reason) aren't competent enough to rent a normal apartment on a normal lease. Especially once you factor in roommates, it is NOT hard for a person to rent a regular room somewhere - at similar cost to the boarding house anyway. Boarding houses are for people who (again for whatever reason) are so transient/unreliable/whatever that a lease simply isn't an option.

Consequently, the types of people who rent at a boarding house are tremendously more likely to be a problem neighbor. End of story. There's really no way around that.

QuoteNow, think about the function of a boarding house. Their (legitimate) purpose is to provide housing for people who (for whatever good or bad reason) aren't competent enough to rent a normal apartment on a normal lease.

So, someone who worked their entire life in a lower paying service industry job that somehow made your life better, even if it was just a clean motel room, and finds themselves older and sick and on disability that doesn't allow for a normal rental is just incompetent?  Yes, many are in the position they are in through a mistake they made and never recovered from.  I guess you never made a mistake? Hopefully you never make one so bad as it destroys your life as you now know it.

QuoteConsequently, the types of people who rent at a boarding house are tremendously more likely to be a problem neighbor. End of story. There's really no way around that.

No, it isn't the end of the story, it is the beginning.  It illustrates the some of the prejudices we are faced with today. And ones we must get past if any community like Springfield is to become truly successful.

I am a bit lost here in this discussion.

The Springfield Historic Overlay specifies which uses are permitted. Rooming house is not one of them (boarding house is a sub category of rooming house). Rooming house is classified as special use and new special uses are not allowed in the district.

So what really is being discussed here ?

QuoteSec. 656.368. Springfield Historic Zoning Districts.
Springfield Historic Zoning Districts include the following:
I. Residential Medium Density-Springfield (RMD-S) District.
(a) Permitted uses and structures.
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) New two-family dwellings meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in this Section.
(3) Original use two-family dwellings.
(4) Original use multiple-family dwellings. Such dwellings cannot include more units than were within the structure at the time of construction.
(5) Community residential homes of six or fewer residents meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code and the special use criteria set forth in Section 656.369.
(6) Housing for the elderly meeting the criteria for special uses set forth in Section 656.369.
(7) Family day care homes meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(8 ) Foster care homes.
(9) Essential services, including water, sewer, gas, telephone, radio, television and electric, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(10) Churches, including a rectory or similar use, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(11) Neighborhood parks, pocket parks, playgrounds or recreational structures which serve or support a neighborhood or several adjacent neighborhoods, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(12) Bed and breakfast establishments meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.

QuoteSec. 656.368. I (d)   Special uses.
Special uses include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of over six residents. New special uses are not allowed in the district and existing special uses must conform to the standards set forth in Section 656.369.

Quote§ 509.242(1)(f), Florida Statutes: Roominghouse.--A roominghouse is any public lodging establishment that may not be classified as a hotel, motel, resort condominium, nontransient apartment, bed and breakfast inn, or transient apartment under this section. A roominghouse includes, but is not limited to, a boardinghouse.

QuoteSec. 656.1601. Definitions.
Boardinghouse means a residential facility building where meals are regularly prepared and served to the residents only for compensation and where food is placed upon the table family-style without service or ordering of individual portions from a menu. A boardinghouse shall not be deemed to include a hotel, motel, group care home, family care home, recovery home, residential treatment facility, emergency shelter, emergency shelter home or nursing home.

Rooming houses means a building in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public where rentals are for a period of a week or longer and occupancy is generally by residents rather than transient.

I've been looking at Jacksonville's history during the 60s.  Wow.  What a tumultuous decade.  What role, if any, did consolidation play in Springfield's decline?  Or, did it help stabilize the neighborhood and keep it from declining even further? 

Quote from: strider on August 03, 2009, 03:43:55 PM
So, someone who worked their entire life in a lower paying service industry job that somehow made your life better, even if it was just a clean motel room, and finds themselves older and sick and on disability that doesn't allow for a normal rental is just incompetent?  Yes, many are in the position they are in through a mistake they made and never recovered from.  I guess you never made a mistake? Hopefully you never make one so bad as it destroys your life as you now know it.

Strider, I suggest you read my post again. I went out of my way to qualify the fact that someone forced into a boarding house situation could be there for a good or bad reason. Good reasons include being working-poor, infirm, legitimate life mistakes, and all the other things you tried to lecture me about. My post already references that. (By the way, "not competent" was accurately referencing their inability to sign a lease, not about their competence as a human being.)

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether a boarder is a good or bad person (which has needlessly taken up too much of the argument). The fact that they are in dire economic straits to being with is a huge problem for neighboring property values. It doesn't matter how noble or ignoble their past history is.

So everyone - feel free to get mad at me for pointing out a reality of real estate. Yes, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. Again, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. One more time, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. I'm telling the truth and I'm answering the original question of the thread (unless someone wants to dispute my evil capitalist motives for assuming that a reduction in property values is "a problem")

Like I said, I believe in the free market, and I think this housing segment should exist. I'm just also willing to say it's a "per se" negative for surrounding property values. I can't help it if my matter-of-fact acknowledgment of reality interferes with peoples' social vision of the way things ought to be.

Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2009, 05:21:43 PM
being near poor people reduces your real estate [values]?

Why, yes. Yes it does.

Oh, honestly.  If that were the case, Springfield would not have enjoyed any improvement in real estate values.  I think 40% of the population still lives below the poverty level. (I'm not sure about that percentage).

But, to get back to the discussion at hand, I thought we were looking at a historical perspective...

Joe its not worth the time to argue with these boarding house proponents.  Their bottom line is they're good your bad, so why waste your time.

QuotePosted by: stephendare

Have you ever seen a Hospitality Suites?  Its a corporate boarding house.  There are still plenty of people who need to travel to a city for business purposes and yet only want to stay for a week, or month or two months.  Staying in a hotel the entire time would be pretty expensive, and signing a lease would be ludicrous.

You're kidding of course. How do Hospitality Suites for corporates or boarding schools, even come into play here. These are in no way the same as boarding houses that are being discussed.

Quote from: Karl_Pilkington on August 03, 2009, 05:34:20 PM
Joe its not worth the time to argue with these boarding house proponents.  Their bottom line is they're good your bad, so why waste your time.

Very true, and it's virtually impossible to have a reasonable discussion

Sheclown - Obviously it is the case, since the entire reason this thread exists is because Strider is responding to Springfield residents' complaints and concerns about more poor people moving into the neighborhood.

You do make a good point by referencing the fact that Springfield is a "poor" neighborhood with plenty of high property values. But again, I think people are assuming I mean things that I never said. Who said that a neighborhood can't have poor people AND rich people? What I'm saying is that poor people REDUCE ... again REDUCE ... the potential value of residential real estate.

Consequently, Springfield is a perfect example. What would happen if those 40% (Strider said 44%) of people below the poverty line were replaced by rich folks. Well, let's be honest with ourselves. Those $300,000 SRG homes would practically double in value.

Again (because I apparently need to be painfully clear), am I saying we need to kick all the poor people out of Springfield? Hell no. I'm not making any normative statement AT ALL.

Quote from: Karl_Pilkington on August 03, 2009, 05:34:20 PM
Joe its not worth the time to argue with these boarding house proponents.  Their bottom line is they're good your bad, so why waste your time.

I see your point Karl. But, I love to argue, so It works out fine. :)

However, I am a bit taken aback by the irrational emotion associated with this topic. I actually consider myself to be a proponent of mixed-use, mixed income urban infill. Yet when I point out the completely obvious and utterly irrefutable reality that property values are reduced below their potential in a mixed-income environment, people have a hissy fit.

What should I say? "Why yes, most home owners wouldn't mind at all if rental property were constructed on their street, never mind a short term rental for indigents" Hell, most people practically burn down city hall if some proposes a building taller than 2 stories within a mile radius of them!!! For damn sure poverty has a negative impact on property values.

Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Well again, is there a science to this?

For example, is there a safe distance in terms of yards or feet at which this value reduction property of the 'poor', begins to diminish?

For example,
if X = The power of riff raff to diminish real estate [value]
and Y = the Real Estate whose [value] is affected by the presence of riff raff
and D = the distance of Riff Raff from Y.

Riff Raff = A
Real Estate Value = B

Is there some kind of basic algebra we can do to accurately forecast the effect of riff raff and plan appropriately?

Also is the ratio of X a constant?  Or if we increase the actual amount of Riff Raff do we then have to double the amount of distance to equal the real estate [value] diminishment?

For example:

B = 100%
unless A is < 100 meters.

If A is < 100 Meters, then  Y = 75% of B?

Would X be inversely proportional to the distance?

And if the value of A is increased by 2  (in case there is a mother father and child)

Would there be a corresponding value of the X factor?

Does 3A mean 3X?

For Example:
If A is < 100 Meters  and Y = 75% of B, then
does it follow that
If 3A is < 100 Meters, then Y = 25% of B??


Perhaps you can enlighten us on this social mathematics?

BWHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stephen, that's a C-L-A-S-S-I-C! I throw in my nomination for Best Post of 2009...

Quote from: Joe on August 03, 2009, 05:12:20 PM

Quote from: strider on August 03, 2009, 03:43:55 PM
So, someone who worked their entire life in a lower paying service industry job that somehow made your life better, even if it was just a clean motel room, and finds themselves older and sick and on disability that doesn't allow for a normal rental is just incompetent?  Yes, many are in the position they are in through a mistake they made and never recovered from.  I guess you never made a mistake? Hopefully you never make one so bad as it destroys your life as you now know it.

Strider, I suggest you read my post again. I went out of my way to qualify the fact that someone forced into a boarding house situation could be there for a good or bad reason. Good reasons include being working-poor, infirm, legitimate life mistakes, and all the other things you tried to lecture me about. My post already references that. (By the way, "not competent" was accurately referencing their inability to sign a lease, not about their competence as a human being.)

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether a boarder is a good or bad person (which has needlessly taken up too much of the argument). The fact that they are in dire economic straits to being with is a huge problem for neighboring property values. It doesn't matter how noble or ignoble their past history is.

So everyone - feel free to get mad at me for pointing out a reality of real estate. Yes, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. Again, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. One more time, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. I'm telling the truth and I'm answering the original question of the thread (unless someone wants to dispute my evil capitalist motives for assuming that a reduction in property values is "a problem")

Like I said, I believe in the free market, and I think this housing segment should exist. I'm just also willing to say it's a "per se" negative for surrounding property values. I can't help it if my matter-of-fact acknowledgment of reality interferes with peoples' social vision of the way things ought to be.

Yes, despite Stephen's excellent post that had me LMFAO for 10 minutes, the truth is that being visibly surrounded with poor people certainly does lower property values. I don't think anyone will argue that.

The problem, and the Titanic-sized hole in your argument, is that the poor are already well settled in Springfield and aren't going anywhere. You can get rid of the rooming houses, and they'll just be sleeping on the sidewalk, or behind your house. So which would you prefer? Because either way, they aren't going to just disappear.

People keep on blaming the symptoms, rather than the disease.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 03, 2009, 06:12:48 PM
Yes ... the truth is that being visibly surrounded with poor people certainly does lower property values. I don't think anyone will argue that.

Yes, that is my entire point. Thank you.

And Stephen is indeed vociferously arguing that point.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 03, 2009, 06:12:48 PM
The problem, and the Titanic-sized hole in your argument, is that the poor are already well settled in Springfield and aren't going anywhere. You can get rid of the rooming houses, and they'll just be sleeping on the sidewalk, or behind your house. So which would you prefer? Because either way, they aren't going to just disappear.

That's not a hole in my argument because I don't prefer a damn thing. I've made no normative policy statements at all. (Except maybe when I said that boarding houses have a right to exist, btw) The only thing I've been defending is the completely reasonable statement that you also made in the first quotation above.

However, for what it's worth, the poor in Springfield are not "well settled" at all. There was a landmark study done on gentrification (just google gentrification and "not bad" or something similar) which analyzed years of census data over tens of thousands of communities. The results indicated that people in distressed neighborhoods are constantly moving around, and at much higher rates than other segments of the population. Ironically enough, this is because of monthly leases and .. ahem ... boarding houses. So even though "poor" communities might have been poor for decades, it's often with a revolving door of different poor people. Of course, you can always find the 90 year old lady who was born in her house, but over the entire population it's a revolving door.

Quote from: Joe on August 03, 2009, 06:31:45 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 03, 2009, 06:12:48 PM
Yes ... the truth is that being visibly surrounded with poor people certainly does lower property values. I don't think anyone will argue that.

Yes, that is my entire point. Thank you.

And Stephen is indeed vociferously arguing that point.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 03, 2009, 06:12:48 PM
The problem, and the Titanic-sized hole in your argument, is that the poor are already well settled in Springfield and aren't going anywhere. You can get rid of the rooming houses, and they'll just be sleeping on the sidewalk, or behind your house. So which would you prefer? Because either way, they aren't going to just disappear.

That's not a hole in my argument because I don't prefer a damn thing. I've made no normative policy statements at all. (Except maybe when I said that boarding houses have a right to exist, btw) The only thing I've been defending is the completely reasonable statement that you also made in the first quotation above.

However, for what it's worth, the poor in Springfield are not "well settled" at all. There was a landmark study done on gentrification (just google gentrification and "not bad" or something similar) which analyzed years of census data over tens of thousands of communities. The results indicated that people in distressed neighborhoods are constantly moving around, and at much higher rates than other segments of the population. Ironically enough, this is because of monthly leases and .. ahem ... boarding houses. So even though "poor" communities might have been poor for decades, it's often with a revolving door of different poor people. Of course, you can always find the 90 year old lady who was born in her house, but over the entire population it's a revolving door.

In Springfield, I'd venture to guess 90% of the poor are either long-term tenants, or they're actually homeowners. I should know, I rented to many of them. Some were "working poor", taking a bus for 2 hours each way to earn $6/hr at a call center, and others were on SSI, welfare, etc.

So what do you plan on doing with all the 4, 6, 8, etc., plexes who rent to poor people? Unlike rooming houses, those landlords have constitutionally guaranteed property rights. Get rid of the 15 rooming houses, and keep the 1,000 multifamily low-income dwellings, and you really think you're going to see some huge improvement?

Come on, man. It is what it is. It's not going to improve until property values do, and it becomes more profitable to devote a property to some other use vs. collecting Section 8. If you just shut all the rooming houses, those people aren't going away...they'll still be around, many of them will just be homeless. Forcing the issue before the area is demographically ready for it will just make the neighborhood worse.

Just to prove that I actual read this forum before I post:

QuoteTheir (legitimate) purpose is to provide housing for people who (for whatever good or bad reason) aren't competent enough to rent a normal apartment on a normal lease. Especially once you factor in roommates, it is NOT hard for a person to rent a regular room somewhere - at similar cost to the boarding house anyway. Boarding houses are for people who (again for whatever reason) are so transient/unreliable/whatever that a lease simply isn't an option.

Just to remind you, JOE, of what you said....I did get it the first time.  The fact that you said it isn't hard to rent a regular room and at the similar costs says you never had to try and really don't know what things really cost and how hard it is.

QuoteTheir bottom line is they're good your bad, so why waste your time.

Karl, you need to go back to school if you are doing the math and coming up that a rooming house is a great way to get rich. In a way, any talk about money and rooming houses is a lose-lose for us.  If we are making money, we are scum and if we aren't, we are terrible businessmen. 

QuoteBEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. One more time, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE

While there is a small amount of truth in this, it is also why many of the newer residents of say, Springfield, came here.  Low realestate prices equals good values.  The Metro Edge study says 44% at under 15K per year.  And values in Springfield went up substantially even though they were here. Now that the market has crashed all over, it's let's blame the poor for it all. Common sense says otherwise. Afterall, the poor were here and you bought here, didnt you?

QuoteLets remember that the discussion is about NEW special uses, not existing once. Nobody is driven out of their house, and no veterans are kicked out on the street. That's what the welfare barons want you to believe. The agreement reached last year was no more NEW special uses.

No, this discussion is about a comment made in a thread on the SPAR Forum ... "I completely understand that we are all striving to make Springfield a vibrant family community and boarding houses are what is standing in the way of that. "   ... and the history of the decline of Springfield years ago and how it refutes that claim.  Not to open old wounds, but the "agreement reached last year was no more NEW special uses" is also incorrect.  The overlay already had defined and prevented new "special uses".  The issue was over a correction of an error and certain factions at SPAR Council and within the community tried to use that as a way to truly drive people out of their homes.  They used the tactics of spreading mis-information and even withholding information to help them accomblish that. The end result was that the existing special uses were indeed grandfathered in as originally intended.   Nothing more, nothing less.

Even I am not proposing new rooming houses, but by understandfing the past, we can perhaps find a way to a better future.  It is not by blaming the boarding houses, discriminating against a group because you do not like them or spreading mis-information to further your version of Spiringfield.

Quote from: strider on August 03, 2009, 08:43:31 PM
Just to prove that I actual read this forum before I post:

Karl, you need to go back to school if you are doing the math and coming up that a rooming house is a great way to get rich.

where did I say that oh great one?  I know its late but perhaps its time to get off the pipe, you're starting to hallucinate.

you have to admit though that compared to your "tenants" you are rich, so being a rooming house magnate is definitely working for you, just embrace it. 

I am just curious how does the tax thing work with boarding houses. I know the landlord/property manager collects sales tax for short term rental.  What about food served? Are they taxed separately or together? Is boarding house in the same category as b&b or hotel with restaurant?

Rooming houses are licensed by the state as rooming houses.  The tax thing was addressed pretty well during the previous issue some are talking about and as nothing happened, I would assume everything is being done legally. There really aren't any regular boarding houses left in Springfield.

One thing that was just brought up to me was the practise of "redlining".  It is a term I have heard before and is a large reason Sprinfield stayed down as long as it did.  It has to do with the issues many found trying to buy here in the late 70's and the 80's. It is a practise that is linked to the federal government and often to mostly black, poor inner city areas. Wekipedia has a pretty good definition of it.

QuoteWhy are the facilities here in the urban core and not on , say, the Southside?  Why don’t these facilities move and build elsewhere?  Is there a valid reason they are here and remain here?  Are there in fact any facilities in the other areas of town and are they successful? Would it make more sense to work with the various facilities to insure that they are more of a positive to the community rather than just trying to or at least hoping to eliminate them?

The above is from my original post.  We have discussed the reasons an area like Springfield fell into decline.  Perhaps it is time to talk about the above.  Who knows what facilities to help the poor and the homeless are located in places other than downtown?

Movedsouth, no, I'm not.  I am saying redlining was part of this list: 

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs.
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core
3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable.
4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.
5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.
6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds.
7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes.
8 ) lack of functional infra-structure. 
9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values.

We could call redlining number 10.  Just one of the reasons a community like Springfield fell into decline.  And something that makes turning these communities around that much more difficult.  Which is what we are really talking about. Someone else brought up the tax thing. It isn't really related. 

Since no one else has addressed it ...  there are many facilities that deal with the poor and homeless in other areas of Jacksonville.  There is a very large facility out on Beach. Anyone know anything about it?

To the OP,

Boarding houses are not "the" problem, they are one of the problems. And adding more does not increase the home values, safety, or quality of life for the neighborhood. No one can argue that.

And that's the reason why virtually no one that does NOT have a vested interest in boarding houses want them down their street, next door, down a few blocks, etc.

Strider & sheclown try to paint this rosy, Pollyanish-fairy tale of yesteryear.......well, guess what....it's not that way any more. Hasn't been for some time. And dare I say that if you weren't making money off boarding houses, but lived next you one, you wouldn't like it either.

Throw in the fact that this 1 square mile has more than any other part of the largest city in America, and you got yourself an issue. Especially when the suggestion of NEW a boarding house comes up, especially in an area that's in the midst of a huge restoration.

What Joe said is indisputable. The nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

No new boarding houses are welcome, end of story, no matter what kind of spin Strider & sheclown put on it. The ones that are already established will be around for a while, perhaps not.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2009, 11:20:59 AM
Moved South.  Again.  Please read the thread so that it doesnt have to be explained, all special like, again for you.

btw.  You do know that a short while ago, people who didnt own property (along with women and other minorities apparently) were granted 'citizenship'?

Many of them are citizens to this day, including the 99% middle class people currently buying their homes on a payment schedule from banks in the Springfield area.  Which is you know....a kind of progress don't you think?

I think its just grand that we allow people who won't actually own a home for another twenty years or so (and I hear that some people have thirty years on their mortgages)  vote and participate in the society as though they were actual landowning citizens.  Don't you?

Mr. Dare, is your post a personal attack or you are exempt ?
BTW, to make progress is to make things better, which means change the way we do things. Just because something was justified yesteryear does not make it justified today.

QuoteWhat Joe said is indisputable. The nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

This deserves another quoting since the real facts are being ignored:

Quote

QuoteBEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. One more time, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE

While there is a small amount of truth in this, it is also why many of the newer residents of say, Springfield, came here.  Low realestate prices equals good values.  The Metro Edge study says 44% at under 15K per year.  And values in Springfield went up substantially even though they were here. Now that the market has crashed all over, it's let's blame the poor for it all. Common sense says otherwise. Afterall, the poor were here and you bought here, didnt you?

So, why did you, fsu813, want to be in Springfield with all those poor and rooming houses again?

And, as it keeps getting ignored:

QuoteEven I am not proposing new rooming houses, but by understanding the past, we can perhaps find a way to a better future.  It is not by blaming the boarding houses, discriminating against a group because you do not like them or spreading mis-information to further your version of Springfield.

How did this discussion and my statement above get twisted to mean I and Sheclown wanted new rooming houses?  And just for the record, we do not own even one rooming house.

The problem is that it is easy to blame one thing or one group of people.  It isn't that simple.  One thing we can learn from the past is that believing it is that simple and concentrating on removing one group you do not like does not mean your revitazation efforts will be successful.  Quite the opposite, it quarantees failure.

Strider, you are splitting hairs.  We are indeed on the board of a non-profit which has a rooming house license. And has had it for over 20 years.

That being said.  I think the conversation about the decline of the neighborhood is a good and valuable one.  Personal attacks aside.  We may just learn something from the past...

Quote from: strider on August 04, 2009, 10:31:31 AM
Movedsouth, no, I'm not.  I am saying redlining was part of this list: 

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs. [i]Happened in the 60s a result of desegregation, race riots downtown from 1960 Axe Handle Saturday to the Florida Avenue riots in 1969
[/i]
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core When did this start, what made this happen?

3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable. See number one above

4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.

5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.

6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds. Earlier Springfield attempts to revitalize

7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes. Crack boom of the 80s?

8 ) lack of functional infra-structure.  Consolidation of the 60s and the infrastructure money going to the suburbs?

9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values. See #8

We could call redlining number 10. 

Yes, Sheclown, we are on the board of a non-profit that has a halfway house which is the same license per the state as a rooming house.  I just do not consider it the same thing as the typical person off the street can't stay there.  And several have inferred on this forum that we own many, which is not true. But, I get your point, and I stand corrected.

Moved south, you are indeed part of the problem and your attitude, if it is shared by enough others does nothing but insure that any long term revitalization efforts will not succeed.

Once again. let me post the original quote: I completely understand that we are all striving to make Springfield a vibrant family community and boarding houses are what is standing in the way of that. And yes, it was made on the thread over at SPAR Council about the possible legal use of a house on boulevard as a low density group care home.  This is different than the rooming house issue.

Some are letting the personal issues cloud their judgement.  And when the attack is from someone who is truly a slumlord, it becomes laughable.

Ok, enough.  If anyone out there is actually interested in truth and what may perhaps help everyone, then stay tuned and maybe we can continue to discuss this rationally.

Strider, I see your point and I'll stand corrected too. 

Sheclown.

Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2009, 04:17:25 PM
Hey Alex.  This thread is about the history of Springfield, and the effects of boarding houses, and group homes etc.  Also the decline and decay of the neighborhood in the first place.

If you scroll back to the beginning of the thread, you can catch up.

We arent discussing present day circumstances or the zoning overlay.

I actually read the whole thread before posting. I usually do.
The original thread asked the question about definition, so I was right on topic. Perhaps it wasn't quite what you felt should be discussed.  ;)

QuoteCan any of you really define "boarding house" , "Rooming house",  "Halfway House",  "Bed and Breakfast",  "Extended stay motel" ,"Group Care Home",  "ACLF",  "Residential Treatment Facility" , “Sober Living Facility” and "Community Residential Home"?

This is how a rooming house can be identified.

Quote(A). Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent:
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc;
(C) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.

In 2000 when City Council enacted the overlay (656.365) based on recommendations from the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997 they must have felt that special uses are bad for Springfield. What has changed since then ?

Quote(d)   Over a period of many years, zoning and land use changes in Springfield have served to encourage the decline of the area and not its redevelopment. The Springfield Historic District has been negatively affected by current zoning districts which do not recognize the unique character of the neighborhood. For many years prior to the establishment of the District, the City allowed intensive and intrusive uses to locate in the neighborhood and did not encourage the type of development that promotes and sustains a stable, economically viable, and primarily single-family/owner-occupied neighborhood. Standard zoning districts also do not recognize the small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique development pattern.
(e)   Within the one square mile area of the Springfield Historic District, the Council finds there is a disproportionately large number of rooming houses (13), group care homes, community residential homes of seven or more residents and automotive uses (20), including automobile sales and repairs and related automotive uses.
(h)   The property disinvestment and blight caused by incompatible zoning and other factors associated with core City decline must be reversed through a comprehensive revitalization program that will include zoning districts tailored to the neighborhood. Standards should allow appropriate and compatible development to proceed without the high costs associated with variances and administrative deviations required to deviate from current lot and use standards.
(i)   The zoning districts and regulations contained in this Subpart I were developed with the participation and assistance of neighborhood residents, property owners and City staff.
(j)   The Planning Commission and the Urban Affairs and Planning Committee considered these districts and regulations, held public hearings and made their recommendations to the Council.

The thread was also about a post titled "Help" regarding a property on 1541 Boulevard. New special uses are not allowed any more. I could not find a definition of "low density group home". So lets give the benefit of the doubt and assume what is proposed is legal. It also has been alleged that there are other "low density group homes" in Springfield. Since I could not find a (new) DBPR license, it could be assumed that they fall under one of the exclusion criteria and don't need one. Which begs the question what these houses are legally ? So perhaps in the discussion these new entities should be separated from the rooming/boarding houses. The question may be if these new entities are good or bad for Springfield.

Quote509.013 (4), Florida Statutes (FS)
(a) "Public lodging establishment" means any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests. License classifications of public lodging establishments, and the definitions therefor, are set out in s. 509.242, Florida Statutes. For the purpose of licensure, the term does not include condominium common elements as defined in s. 718.103, Florida Statutes.
(b) The following are excluded from the definition in paragraph (a):
1. Any dormitory or other living or sleeping facility maintained by a public or private school, college, or university for the use of students, faculty, or visitors;
2. Any hospital, nursing home, sanitarium, assisted living facility, or other similar place;
3. Any place renting four rental units or less, unless the rental units are advertised or held out to the public to be places that are regularly rented to transients;

It should be noted that the number of active DBPR lodging licenses for Springfield actually has decreased from 2008 to 2009.

AlexS you are right and you are wrong.  This thread was in response to an incorrect statement that boarding houses are the reason Springfield isn't progressing into the "family oriented " community some want it to be.  While some are subscribing other motives, I simply want to show that there are many, many reasons and to show that we must recognize this before we can successfully improve the community.

AlexS, you posted some good info, but what about the other, harder questions?  And, what about the rest of the definitions, if that is what you would prefer to answer.  You notice that in the info from the overlay, it does indeed blame zoning as a reason for the decline and that too many rooming houses is an issue, but as the lack of zoning control as well as other factors allowed too many rooming houses, they took steps to correct that.  Not eliminate rooming houses, but limit the number to what some believe to be more in line with what is suitable.  Also note that they are talking about special uses rather than the permissible uses like the low density houses.  These same experts that you give credit too for identifying rooming houses as a problem also did not consider low density homes to be an issue.

In addition, do you truly believe that the meetings at which theses overlay issues were discussed were actually attended by an accurate cross section of the community?  Is it an accurate assessment of the issues? Are the poor truly represented in today's Springfield? If so, who represents them?

Overall, AlexS, I'm glad to have you part of this discussion.

^ Some retirees, singles, and childless couples presumably. (Not coincidentally, plenty of these groups represented in Springfield's renaissance). I have met many people who intentionally avoid family areas. But generally, I agree with your point. Across all categories, a "family oriented" community is a positive for most people.

Quote from: downtownparks on August 04, 2009, 04:41:26 PM
Can I ask, who DOESN'T want it to be a "family oriented" community?

I don't want the community to be anything oriented, neither family, white, black, young, old, single, married, LGBT, yuppee, urban professional, artist or anything else for that matter. Diverse would be just fine. Once it's something oriented it excludes to many others.

But how is that related to boarding houses and it's effects on the community ?

Actually, Dan, it was and is a legitimate concern.  Some do only want "their kind" in "their" neighborhood. You often sound that way, yet now you say that isn't the case. 

QuotePersonally, I do see a difference between 5 homeless, and 5 college room mates. I do see a difference between a 3 to a room rooming house and an apartment. Assuming I am reading you properly, what makes it all the same to you?

First, 5 homeless means something bad to most here.  Five unrelated adults is actually the right description.  Homeless is not what they are, it is a unwanted condition they find themselves in.  College students are, well, college students.  So no, there is no difference between 5 unrelated adults and 5 college students.  They both could be the best neighbors you ever had.  Or the worst.  Equal chance of either with either group.  You can say the same thing with a family of five.  Or a rich family or a poor family.  Overall, there is no difference.

Three in a room or three in a one bedroom apartment really is the same thing.  A lot of sharing going on.  Sharing a bath with the family down the hall used to be common place.  In today's society, it has evolved into something bad.  Yet, do you not share a bath with another family when go visit friends at their house?  I know, it is different because you know them, but when you get right down to it, you are still sharing that bath.  Eveything is indeed realative and to someone who once lived under a bridge, sharing a room or sharing a bath is heaven by comparison.  And trust me, as they get used to "normal life", they hope to eventually get to that real apartment.  Some do, others never will.  Some cannot so they become long term residents in one of the facilities. 

The point is, none of this makes them bad neighbors.  None of this should preclude them from being welcomed or at least accepted as part of the community.

Strider really has no credibility left.

If you think living next to 5 "people that find themselves in the unfortunatate situation to be without housing at the moment" or whatever PC label you'd others to call them, and living next to 5 college students is the equatable then your are nuts, sir.

Homeless, in general, have made repeated poor choices that have resulted in thier situation, often caused by vices (drugs, alcoholism, etc). A minority have just had bad luck, a very small minority. College students are interested in their future, have shown good judgment to get where they are, and generally care about not screwing thier future up.

Furthermore, Strider, you asked me "why did you choose to live next to poor people and bprading houses?"

Again, you loose credibility. I don't have any issues with poor people, yet you infer that I do. Why? Oh that's right, b/c it makes your argument sound better. Grwoing up in Riverside in the late 80's and 90's I experienced first hand a neighborhood restoration. Gun shots, prostitutes, drug houses, and frequent DV in the streets died out. You don't see them my old street anymore (2000 block of Myra), where it used to be not uncommon at all. Thus I grew up with many poor people that have maintained friendships with me even today. Poor can take a vested interested in thier homes and neighborhoods just like middle class or rich people. Unlike boarding houses/rehab houses or whatever you want to call them.

I moved here b/c I like historic neigborhoods, i like that it's in the middle of a restoration, i like that it's already MUCH better than Riverside when I was a child, i like that it has a evry strong community organization (which is needed to sustain the restoration), i like the location, and i like the fact the relatively close, neighborly ties between most residents.

Again I state : if you weren't making money off borading/halfway/rehab houses......then you wouldn't be supporting them. Also, you wouldn't a plethora of them in your neighborhood, block, or next door. Noone would. That's why i support having a a limited amount in various neighborhoods, not concentrated into one.

WTF?  backhanded insults, outright fabrications, lies lies lies yeah, the stuff of your post stephen. I mean come on, "couldn't afford in the first place"?  really? Seriously?  I know you've got that duracell on your shoulder, but man that was ridiculous.  Like everyone can't trace some trash or rich bitch in their family histories here in the US, what was the purpose of that.  No one is trying to recreate anything, "social creaminess" thats just plain ridiculous and you know it is, ergo.

what another insult?  man....

Stephen, do really believe your own bullshit? Just wondering.

I hope you're not talking Bushmills that foul protestant swill.

So does it not qualify as a personal attack when you don't mention a name but everyone knows who you are talking about due to past personal experience and/or posts?

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2009, 10:16:07 AM
Well, I certainly don't believe any of yours.  This constant attempt to smirch and bully your neighbors is a little tenditious and a little much.

I think it has been pointed out before these are not our neighbors, these are simply people prostituting our neighborhood for the almighty dollar while living somewhere else.  

Quote from: enuffalready on August 05, 2009, 12:24:41 PM
I think it has been pointed out before these are not our neighbors, these are simply people prostituting our neighborhood for the almighty dollar while living somewhere else.  

AND I now have it on good authority that they do partake in that awful Protestant hooch known as Bushmills!  what a combo huh?

the thread was asking if boarding houses were a problem, i think you got your answer.

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs.
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core
3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable.
4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.
5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.
6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds.
7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes.
8 ) lack of functional infra-structure. 
9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values.
10) Redlining


Actually,  many here have recognized that “boarding houses” were once an integral part of life and therefore, not always "bad".  There is some evidence that they became "bad" as the community declined and that too many of them could be a "bad" thing in a "bad" neighborhood.  A far cry from saying that “boarding houses” are the problem.

What we do have a is list of things that all contributed directly to the decline of Springfield.  I did not put "boarding houses" on it because, and I am not alone in knowing this, “boarding house” issues are a symptom rather than a cause.  As it is a symptom, if you just eliminate "boarding houses" you still have the same causes or the same disease that will still take down a community.  We have been trying at least to talk about the past, but as some want to talk about today, let's ask a question or two.

Of the listed ten items, how many are still hurting Springfield and what are the signs that they are actually here and an issue?  In other words, while there was a huge improvement in Springfield over the better part of the last ten years, what issues are still here and what issues have come back due to the recent economic issues?

who cares if they once were? why does that matter exactly? (ha)

- continously bringing up that they once weren't disliked by the communities they are in doesn't change or affect anything today. asbestos was once thought to be a pretty cool material too, what does that have to do with today's view of asbestos? nothing.

- in my first post in this thread, you'll find that i said that they are not THE problem, but A problem......but i guess you didn't read it.

- getting rid of the "symptoms" is better than not. all of us that have been sick would rather take medicine to alleviate the symptoms, even if it takes time to heal.

- your list is diverting your role in staggnation of revitalization, rather than acknowledging.

- of your entire post, your last sentence is the only one that doesn't try to deflect. To that, i'd say 4, 6, & 7 are still issues....they rest are not. Not sure what #10 is.

btw,

you did get your answer. you just don't like it.

Well technically he got a couple opinions of what the answer should be according to those espousing the opinions. Nothing more.

The truth is that there aren't that many rooming houses of any variety left in Springfield, compared to a few years ago, and that figure will continue to decline into nonexistence due to the zoning/overlay revisions (with the apparent exception of the new one the CEO of Clara White is trying to start).

What there are, though, is a whole crapload of condemned properties, boarded up or abandoned houses, prostitutes, vacant lots, vacant commercial properties, and a neighborhood preservation group that's been largely consumed with internal politics while the City has gone on a 15-year rampage of knocking down hundreds of historic structures that continues to this day. And on, and on, and on.

Then you have Springfield's immediate proximity to other low-income neighborhoods, which don't have ANY hope of rebounding in our lifetimes, because they have pretty much zero historic value (mostly 1950's/1960's cinder block stuff). That will continue to be a huge anchor around Springfield's neck, regardless of anything else. Then you have a gigantic rental market in Springfield, where a nice chunk of the tenants are equally as bad (if not worse) as what you'd get in any boarding house.

All of these things are far larger issues than a couple of rooming houses. Honestly, the rooming house thing is pretty much a non-issue compared to everything else going on.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 10, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
The truth is that there aren't that many rooming houses of any variety left in Springfield, compared to a few years ago, and that figure will continue to decline into nonexistence due to the zoning/overlay revisions (with the apparent exception of the new one the CEO of Clara White is trying to start).

The terms "not that many" and "a few years" are vague enough to leave those amounts up to interpretation. How many is "not that many" and is "a few years" ago 5-10-20? And how will that number decline if the zoning/overlay revisions continue to allow exceptions for people who weren't able to sell their house at the $$$ they wanted in these tough economic times? Maybe next year they make 10 exceptions? Then you end up with the same cycle starting over again. People won't want to be surrounded by boarding or rooming houses, they start selling, values drop and more people sell before the bottom hits. Then the city ends up losing more money from the falling tax values.
   

Quoteyou did get your answer. you just don't like it.

Actually, I think you got answers you did not like. 

QuoteThe truth is that there aren't that many rooming houses of any variety left in Springfield, compared to a few years ago, and that figure will continue to decline into nonexistence due to the zoning/overlay revisions

The actual numbers are close to 40 plus in 2000 down to 11 in 2008.  That is true "Special Uses".  As far as the supposed "new" half way houses/ rooming house/ boarding house that the "CEO of Clara White" is accused of trying to open, it is not a "Special Use", rather a permissible use under that particular zoning code (Which is RMD-S).

QuoteAnd how will that number decline if the zoning/overlay revisions continue to allow exceptions for people who weren't able to sell their house at the $$$ they wanted in these tough economic times?

First, there have been no revisions to the overlay.  2007-1046 modified it slightly by adding a few reporting requirements. Those modifications did nothing what so ever to change either the scope of the overlay or it's intent.  It should also be noted that the overlay did not intent to eliminate the special uses, rather it intended to reduce the number to what many would consider more reasonable for the area that makes up Springfield.  As the existing Special Uses are grandfathered in, it can easily be seen that they could exist forever. That depends upon things like need, how they are run, ETC.  As they are inspected by the state and the county, if they are not run properly, it can be assumed that they will be dealt with the proper way.

No exception is needed in any zoning code that I know of to just rent your house.  I do agree, however, that it is a good idea to rent a house in today’s market, if you can, rather than sell it at a substantial loss.  The alternatives to renting are to let it sit empty where vandals will strip it and it still cost thousands a year to hold on to, or sell it for a fraction of your investment.  Me?  I’d rather hold it and rent it and at least try to cover the costs in hopes of the market coming back again to eventually sell for at least enough to cover those basic costs. 

Like others have said, there are far larger issues here than a few existing rooming houses or even a few rentals that some do not like.

QuoteI'd say 4, 6, & 7 are still issues....they rest are not. Not sure what #10 is.

Yes, I agree with your choices.  4, 6 and 7 are still and have been major issues.  10, by the way is:

From Wikpedia: Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs, access to health care, or even supermarkets,  to residents in certain, often racially determined,  areas. The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by community activists in Chicago. It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) no matter the geography.

You can see where is fits in with many of the other issues on the list.

As to the others no longer applying?  “white flight” , no it’s pretty much over.  Though some are saying it might become “suburb flight” someday.

I think #2 still applies.  Think about the lack of large commercial or retail in downtown or Springfield.  A few small store, lots of tall office space that may or may not be empty and some restraunts downtown.  Even less in Springfield.  However, as they are already gone, I can see where you would say 2 doesn’t apply, yet we need those places back, do we not?

3 also is no longer and issue as the urban core is becoming “the place to be”.  And that renewed interest in the urban core is what is turning around #5.  Yet, is it also causing worse issues with the existing population? 

8 and 9 - while OK, and just OK - reference the many pot holes .. is at risk of becoming a huge issue again.  If the city is poor, will the infrastructure get replaced as has been promised?  As the housing values have fallen , will the structures receive the needed repairs or will more fall under the wrecking ball?

You wanna know what the real problem is? Crab-people eval bastards  >:(

Quote from: nvrenuf on August 10, 2009, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 10, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
The truth is that there aren't that many rooming houses of any variety left in Springfield, compared to a few years ago, and that figure will continue to decline into nonexistence due to the zoning/overlay revisions (with the apparent exception of the new one the CEO of Clara White is trying to start).

The terms "not that many" and "a few years" are vague enough to leave those amounts up to interpretation. How many is "not that many" and is "a few years" ago 5-10-20? And how will that number decline if the zoning/overlay revisions continue to allow exceptions for people who weren't able to sell their house at the $$$ they wanted in these tough economic times? Maybe next year they make 10 exceptions? Then you end up with the same cycle starting over again. People won't want to be surrounded by boarding or rooming houses, they start selling, values drop and more people sell before the bottom hits. Then the city ends up losing more money from the falling tax values.
  

When I was a landlord in Springfield, 2000-2005, there were at least several dozen rooming/boarding/multi-resident/call-it-what-you-will houses spread throughout the neighborhood. At least those were the noticeable ones, because they were actually legal. Probably 30-40, or more.

If you count the "off the books" ones, then the true figure was probably in excess of 100. There are almost none today. We're talking at least a 90% reduction. Sorry if you think I was vague, but it wasn't intentional, and I'm happy to take the time to clarify.

i disgaree. there are 12 today, not including the off the books. probably in the twenties. in 1 square mile. too many not to cause problems.

Quote from: fsu813 on August 11, 2009, 12:01:06 AM
i disgaree. there are 12 today, not including the off the books. probably in the twenties. in 1 square mile. too many not to cause problems.

Still a major reduction, no matter how you cut it...

Actually, 11 is the number used by the city and is based on active licenses (both state and health department).  Some think the number should count structures used by those licenses, so in that case, I believe the structures used by those facilites are either 12 to 14 max. One half way house is two connected buildings and I think one, maybe two of the rooming houses have two structures attached to the license. Of the how many structures (left) in Historic Sprignfield?  1200 to 1500? Back when the rooming house were a real problem, they numbered almost 10% of the structures, still a small number of structures in the scheme of things. Think perhaps the much larger number of poorly run rentals were the bigger problem?

We can look at Springfield’s history and see that rooming houses were not the problem some believe they were.  They were certainly A problem and perhaps two on each block was too much but the rooming  houses or “density” did not cause any reduction in values all by themselves.  They had lots of other and sometimes more pressing and much larger reasons helping the situation along.

The “special uses” left today do not number two per block and actually represent a reasonable cross section of that type of housing.  Again, looking at the fact that from 2000 to 2007  the special uses went from 40 plus to 11 (13 structures), I think we can assume that the better run facilities are the ones that survived.  And that also means they were the better maintained or at least got much better maintained than before.  The remaining ones have no real impact on property values …  at least for most people.  A few, perhaps, still look for something to blame for the currently reduced values and blame them.

Like any other kind of rental, how the facility is run or the house or apartment rental managed makes all the difference.  When I lived on Pearl back in 1998 to 2004, I knew one place was a rooming house because I lived next to the owner.  The house itself never let me know.  And I didn’t know for a couple more years that a halfway house was just up the street.  The point is, the houses or the facilities rarely cause any issue today and so most people would not even know they were there.

If I lived in a historic district like Springfield I would want a 'majority' of the properties to be owner occupied. But then again, I like having a neighborhood feeling so maybe I am biased. I've always viewed Springfield to be a very different flavor from say, Riverside. In Riverside, there are a lot of renters and it's a very transient-esque neighborhood. Springfield I've always perceived to be a neighborly-type place. Perhaps I am wrong but isn't that what sets Springfield apart from say, San marco or Riverside?

Joe is a big boy and can handle himself, Stephen. Im sure he appreciates your vote of support though.

You asked, Dan, if I wanted to do away with the overlay and open new facilities?   To be honest, the overlay does not prevent the opening of new "rooming houses".
::)

::)

::)
Ok, did that get anyone’s attention?  The above is a true statement because some of the roles that were once taken by the rooming houses and the boarding houses are now taken by the extended stay inns and the bed & breakfast’s. We do  have a couple of those in Springfield.  Transient oriented facilities that rent by the day, week or month.   And like the rooming houses of old, if the clientele changes and that mortgage payment has to be made, the extended stays and the bed and breakfast’s will look at filling the room any way they legally can.  Yes, the new codes require less density and a bath for each room as well as other newer regulations, but the bottom line is that if the economy demands that they cater to a group that gets subsidized housing, for instance, these “higher class” places will do it to make the mortgage.

This goes back to the idea that we need to recognize what the real causes of decline are and which ones might we face or be facing again. 

And, yes, Stephen, thanks for your support!

I talked to someone familar with the Clara-White and the new halfway house in question today.

they said that from what they knew, the only hold up was the sprinkler system installation (it needed one before it could be used). Didn't seem to know much about the on-going contraversy in the neigjhborhood.

However, he said that this house will be used for "transitional" housing. That is, Vets have 2 years to get there life straightened out and move out. If not, they are forced to leave and a new one comes in.

This one's for you, Dan!

QuoteDan :  ... Unless you are suggesting we repeal the overlay, and allow more of these facilities to open... thats not what your suggesting... is it?

QuoteJoe:  To be honest, the overlay does not prevent the opening of new "rooming houses".

Sorry, I thought that you would get the point that I didn't see any reason to "repeal" the overlay.  New "facilites" can certainly open anytime they want to...as long as the do so according to current laws and codes.

...or not.

nvrenuf  - as there was this S@@@ fight going on between Dan and Stephen for a while and it seems to have been removed, what are you referring too?  Something they said?

I was referring to your comment -

Quoteas long as the do so according to current laws and codes.

I believe there are those who will open regardless of current laws and codes.

nvrenuf, now you know that any thing some here do not like is immediately turned into code enforcement by SPAR Council.  Certanly only the legal ones will survive.  Remember that what some are trying to call "special uses" are not and therfore they are perfectly legal. Case in point, the one talked about that is openning on Boulevard.

Strider... have you read the SPAR Sept/Oct newsletter?  I'd like to quote from the "Director's Letter" titled "Springfield is All About Neighborly Exchange".

Quote"....I got home in time to attend the monthly meeting of the Springfield Women's Club.  The real truth of all the things we had been saying to people over the past couple of days hit home for me once again.  The meeting featured fun and food and sociability shared by congenial neighbors...and the rooming house issue that SPAR is working on was discussed as well.

   Yes, it is very true, Springfield is all about neighborly exchange.  Our organizations support one another; neighbors help each other, realizing that we have one vision.  These are the components of a strong neighborhood that will support the businesses that make our Commercial Corridors home....

As a new Main Street business owner (Team Recovery Thrift Store) and as a board member of a non-profit in the neighborhood who holds a rooming house license, are you feeling the support?  The point of the matter is this...we do NOT have one vision if that vision relies on exclusivity as its guiding light. 

I believe what prevents a fruitful discussion is that facts and rumors are mixed together. Additionally moral and guilt are brought into play.

Facts:
1) There are a number of legal special use facilities in Springfield which are grandfathered in.
2) No new special use facilities are allowed in Springfield due to the zoning overlay.
3) There are some well managed rentals in Springfield which provide rules and are intended to aid in addiction recovery.
4) There are some rentals in Springfield which rent to pedophiles and ex-convicts.
5) There are a certain number of people in Springfield which present a danger to themselves or others.

Rumor:
Some new facilities have opened up in Springfield which disguise themselves as legal rental units but are in fact illegal new special use facilities (rooming houses/boarding house/halfway houses).

If the rumor is true, then it would not matter how nice the people are living in these places. It would also not matter if each person has 100 SQFT or 300 SQFT. It would still be against the law. It would be fruitful to prove or disprove the rumor with facts rather than focusing the discussion on the people living in these facilities.

Just my 2 cents.

Not to mention a certain slum lord is trying to make his way back into the neighborhood, intending to turn his old houses into rooming houses again.

Quote from: fsu813 on September 23, 2009, 03:53:32 PM
Not to mention a certain slum lord is trying to make his way back into the neighborhood, intending to turn his old houses into rooming houses again.

Call him what you will, I had heard that he just closed some places for renovations.  If he has kept up his license, he is still as legal as anyone and is entitled to operate in the neighborhood.

What we have heard is that he has renovated his properties.  Let's see what happens before we condemn him.  Renovating is a great first step, isn't it?

Since he is legal and entitled to operate, it wouldn't hurt to give him the benefit of doubt here. 

(& btw, I believe it is the southeast quadrant where he currently has his houses.)

I was in his Market Street property not too long ago.  I was pleasantly surprised by the place.  It was freshly painted, the room was nicely furnished (sparse, but adequate), it was clean.  I talked to the manager who was very cooperative and helpful.

Evidence shows me a willingness to improve -- it won't hurt to encourage this.

The interesting thing about rooming houses is that the zoning is conveyed to the next owner.  If the neighborhood really wants to get rid of the rooming houses, they could buy them.  Otherwise, they could be rooming houses until the end of time.

Furthermore, since no new rooming houses can open ANYWHERE in Jacksonville (without exception ), that makes these existing properties particularly valuable.

I really don't have any of the details.  I doubt he is expanding. I think he was trying to cash out and renovating was part of that, until the bubble popped.

Why not call him and ask?

i was referring to Billy Moats

Quote from: stephendare on September 23, 2009, 08:56:25 PM
... this is one of the neighborhood's boogeymen, I have to tell you....

These are the things that Redwine has NOT done to me:

Never hired a former city council president to lie to city council in an attempt to hurt me
Never hired a lawyer to attack my legal business
Never tried to run over a former resident of mine in an SUV
Never called IRS, DCF, DBPR, Health Dept, Code Enforcement, & etc. on me
Never lied to keep someone I love out of a SPAR building
Never jeered and laughed at me as I was standing before a crowd at a community meeting
Never displayed personal information about me all over the internet
I could go on...
And last but not least, never called me “that clown on Pearl Street”

Tell me…who’s the boogeyman of Springfield?  From my personal experience, it is not Redwine.

Quote from: sheclown on September 23, 2009, 11:42:28 PM

Quote from: stephendare on September 23, 2009, 08:56:25 PM
... this is one of the neighborhood's boogeymen, I have to tell you....

These are the things that Redwine has NOT done to me:

Never hired a former city council president to lie to city council in an attempt to hurt me
Never hired a lawyer to attack my legal business
Never tried to run over a former resident of mine in an SUV
Never called IRS, DCF, DBPR, Health Dept, Code Enforcement, & etc. on me
Never lied to keep someone I love out of a SPAR building
Never jeered and laughed at me as I was standing before a crowd at a community meeting
Never displayed personal information about me all over the internet
I could go on...
And last but not least, never called me “that clown on Pearl Street”

Tell me…who’s the boogeyman of Springfield?  From my personal experience, it is not Redwine.

Just a question but does everyone in Springfield behave like a 15 year old girl?

Like, no way.

I think there was a guy on 3rd street who was pretty mature, but he moved away.

Only when I don't get my way.............

Quote from: sheclown on September 23, 2009, 11:42:28 PM
Tell me…who’s the boogeyman of Springfield?  From my personal experience, it is not Redwine.

I think that guy you're referring to is now an Ortegro.  From what I've heard and seen he's not in SPR anymore.  No more "boogeyman".  You'll most likely find him lounging at the FYC from now on.

Quote from: AlexS on September 23, 2009, 02:52:36 PM
I believe what prevents a fruitful discussion is that facts and rumors are mixed together. Additionally moral and guilt are brought into play.

Facts:
1) There are a number of legal special use facilities in Springfield which are grandfathered in.
2) No new special use facilities are allowed in Springfield due to the zoning overlay.
3) There are some well managed rentals in Springfield which provide rules and are intended to aid in addiction recovery.
4) There are some rentals in Springfield which rent to pedophiles and ex-convicts.
5) There are a certain number of people in Springfield which present a danger to themselves or others.

Rumor:
Some new facilities have opened up in Springfield which disguise themselves as legal rental units but are in fact illegal new special use facilities (rooming houses/boarding house/halfway houses).

If the rumor is true, then it would not matter how nice the people are living in these places. It would also not matter if each person has 100 SQFT or 300 SQFT. It would still be against the law. It would be fruitful to prove or disprove the rumor with facts rather than focusing the discussion on the people living in these facilities.

Just my 2 cents.

FACT:  someone locked down your post on the SPAR forum.

no comments about Bill Moats?

hope he's unsuccessfull in his attempts.....

Quote from: sheclown on September 24, 2009, 02:48:57 PM
FACT:  someone locked down your post on the SPAR forum.

It was locked by SPAROffice. No explanation given.

Quote from: AlexS on September 23, 2009, 02:52:36 PM
I believe what prevents a fruitful discussion is that facts and rumors are mixed together. Additionally moral and guilt are brought into play.

I believe what prevents a fruitful discussion...is a locked thread! :)

http://sparcouncil.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&p=40935#p40935

they should provide an explanation when they lock it.

QuotePosted by: fsu813  

no comments about Bill Moats?

Actually, Sheclown and I did some research with some folks who used to live at his places and know him.  We did hear that he was going to work on at least one of them so it could be rented out, however, that does not mean he would rent it as a rooming house.  In fact, I suspect, as I haven't seen a license in his name for over two years, he can not re-open as a transient rooming house.  He can certainly just rent it out and until a fact proves otherwise, that's all he can and will be doing.

So the SPAR Office locked that thread ... right after a thoughtful post by AlexS ... sort of confirms that they do not want to talk about the real facts, doesn't it?

Quote from: strider on September 24, 2009, 05:18:25 PM
So the SPAR Office locked that thread ... right after a thoughtful post by AlexS ... sort of confirms that they do not want to talk about the real facts, doesn't it?

When they want your (collectively speaking) opinion, they will give it to you.

Strider,

i have some addtional information that convinces me otherswise, 2 different sources, same information. He's trying to go the Ju'Coby Pittman-Clara White route.

QuoteFSU813: i have some addtional information that convinces me otherswise, 2 different sources, same information. He's trying to go the Ju'Coby Pittman-Clara White route.

Then, if the zoning is correct, it is perfectly legal and not a rooming houses, but a low density group care home. To provide the facts otherwise, you need to see what house, what the zoning is and if he actually does intend to do it and to carry through with all the reguirements.  Until then, it is all just rumor.  Which, I believe, was AlexS's point in his post.  JuCoby Pttman's house was properly zoned and was being ungraded for the legal use.  Bill Moates can certainly do the same.

Say...I have a crazy idea.  Why not ASK HIM?

Quote from: stephendare on September 24, 2009, 05:53:46 PM
Maybe its just as well that they shut it down, with some of the evil, heartless and unintentionally ugly remarks that were made on that thread.

Its hard to have any sympathy for the type of people who write some of those comments.  In fact, you find yourself actively wishing hardship on them.  Who the hell do some of these snotty lower middle class assnobs think they are?

And I see that the same chief instigator is still at work on the thread, making sure people are called no it alls and turned into 'outsiders'.  What a crock of bad meat.

I wonder if they think that 'taking a hard line' makes them appear from a higher class?  I know for a fact that when the shoe is on the other foot, and they have to deal with divorce, foreclosure, or rehab for their loved ones that there is a hell of a lot less discussion.

Pardon me while I check out barf bag.

A few people who posted on this thread actually stated that folks in recovery are a threat to their infant children.  I don't make this stuff up. 

No your problem is SPAR! Have kinda sorta followed this issue for awhile now..........same issue's keep raising their heads. SPAR appears to want anything and everything their was without taking into account just what the people want for their part of the world! Solution is simple.........do not pay SPAR membership fee and when they go down the tubes you reorganize and start with an organization that is responsive to its members. The concept is good, it is an execution issue and SPAR governing body is just too full of themselves!

Quote from: stephendare on September 24, 2009, 10:10:55 PM
I know, sheclown,  Its ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skh6Bp_M_-o

sheclown,

doesn't sound like you care that he was the definition of the word 'slumlord', involved in all sorts of "businesses".

fsu813 -- I sent you a PM.

For all those who have always said: "living by the ( insert you choice here), reduces your houses value", and have always inserted "either sober or recovery houses, well, here's a tidbit of info for ya....

(Oxford houses are basically rentals that are run as sober living facilites.)

In 2006, the Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community (The Hayworth Press) Vol. 31, No. 1/2, 2006, pp 41-49 published an article This Is My Neighborhood: Comparing United States and Australian Oxford House Neighborhoods foundâ€"independent of Oxford Houseâ,,¢ itselfâ€"that neighbors found Oxford Houseâ,,¢ residents made “good neighbors.” Quoting Jason, Roberts and Olson (2004) the authors found that “neighbors living in immediate proximity of a U.S. Oxford House considered the residents more positively than persons living several blocks away; moreover, property values on the block where the Oxford Houses were located did not decrease once the setting was established.” In fact, everywhere Oxford House has located property values increased â€" contrary to some of the unfounded fears that a few individuals sometimes fan when they learn an Oxford Houseâ,,¢ is coming to town.

what the hell does that have to do with this?

you keep grasping at anything, however unrelated, to support your minority opinion.

It seems relevant to me. It is saying that the people living closer to the recovery home saw the residents as good neighbors while those basing opinions on their percetpion rather than actual evidince or personal experience found the recovery home's residents to be less desireable neighbors.

Quote from: fsu813 on October 04, 2009, 09:19:02 AM
what the hell does that have to do with this?

you keep grasping at anything, however unrelated, to support your minority opinion.

And a Quote from you, FSU813:

QuoteThe nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

It seems your own words on this forum have indeed proved my post certainly is revelant.  It also seems to me that you and SPAR Council (as your posts seem to indicate you agree with their position on this subject) are the ones who keep "grasping at anything, however unrelated, to support your minority opinion". 

Strider,

your 'evidence' is ridiculous. 110% out of context, for one, with 1000 things that differeniate that circumstance from this circumstance.

I mean, let's say i find somewhere where living next to a convenience store is a positive. Does that mean that if you live next to a convensince store that it's a good thing? Hell no. Just b/c in one community, with one owner, one population, one particlaur mix of demographics, one neighborhood on thier own particular track, in thier city, with thier laws and policies, with thier history, etc etc etc (Insert any other of the 1000 ways that make thier area different than ours, or any other) show that thier brand of Oxford House was viewed by some (hello, where are the details? the context?) as postive doesn't mean squat for any other area or circumstance.

To start with, FSU813, thank you so much for proving my point.  You see, this discussion is not about the houses, the type of houses, how many houses,  but rather, it is about the people who live in those houses. Re-read your post below.

QuoteThe nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

Therefore, it makes no difference if the facility is called a rental, a sober living facility, Oxford house or a half way or three-quarter house.  It makes no difference if the facility is in Beverly Hills or Springfield.   Your comments apply to all locations and types of houses as they are about who, not what.

I find it amusing that whenever this discussion comes up, the same attacks against these people are made.  They  bring down housing values, they bring in crime, they are bad neighbors.  Yet, no one has ever brought forth proof of this.  You all simply insist that it is simply fact.  Of course, if I happen to bring forth some actual written proof that supports my claims, then I must immediately go out and get more proof because for some reason or another, what I post doesn’t count.

Face facts, you can’t prove that these houses are responsible for lowering housing values because there is no proof.  You can’t prove that these people bring in more crime because there is no proof.  All you can do is use lies and innuendo to attempt to scare others into believing what you claim to be true.  I personally would like to believe people are smarter than that and would rather know the truth.  The truth isn’t what SPAR Council wants you to believe.