There are approximately 28 licensed rooming houses in all of Jacksonville. Of those, 2 are in the area known as New Springfield and 8 are in Historic Springfield proper. At one time (up to 2002 ish?), this list would have been about 40 houses. I'm sure the rest of Jacksonville has seen a drop in the number as well. It is not possible to open a new rooming house anywhere in Jacksonville today except in a few small zoning codes with an exception. As the times are changing back to create a need for this type of affordable housing, a newer version of a rooming house may emerge - probably more like a bed & breakfast rather than the old rooming houses themselves. It must also be pointed out that the Urban Core, for better or worse, is the desired location for this type of housing due to the same traits for which we like to live here..mass transportation, walkability, ETC. This simpy explains why there is a higher concentration here in the urban core compared to the rest of Jacksonville.
This is the actual state licensed rooming houses within the boundaries of Historic Springfield. It is a different list than SPAR Council posted.
1214-1216 N. Main St.â€"Lone Palm Guest House
1152 N. Laura St.â€"Frances Rooms
1616 N Pearl Street - Ms Carters
1120 Hubbard St.â€"Alco Halfway House
1222 Hubbard St.â€"(C. Louise Wilson) Vintage Properties
1733 N. Pearl St.â€"Home Away From Home
217 E 1st St.& 205 E 1st. St. â€"Dortch’s Rooming House
2020 N Main Street ---- Ms. Lucy’s
It totals eight. All of these were “grandfathered†in and are considered legal by the city. Not all of them are actually high density, 2 at least are more like apartments than anything else. The licenses actually reflect this - transient or Non-transient.
However, a few of what SPAR Council calls “rooming houses†are not and so do not appear on this list.
There are a total of four facilities that call themselves Recovery Houses. I say that they only call themselves this because they are really “boarding houses†which only accepts guests that are in recovery. A true “recovery house†is something else entirely, per the city. Three of these facilities hold licenses from the Heath Department rather than the DBPR.
The only facility that is actually licensed as a “Boarding House†is HAFH, which holds both a food service license and a rooming house from the state DBPR. Alco House holds a license from the DBPR and the Heath Department, the DBPR license came about from something during the 1046 issue and seems to be just an extra license they wanted them to pay.
So, the two missing (from the list above) facilities are:
1704-1706 N. Pearl St.â€"City Houses, Inc.
20 W 4th St.â€"Alcoholics Service Center
On top of that, there are two or more older ACLFs or ALFs or larger group care homes, what ever they are currently called, that were grandfathered in as well. The only one on SPAR Council’s list is:
133 W. 6th St.â€"Ruth’s Family Home Away From Home
Peterson’s ALF __ 1622 Silver Street
Second one found!
This brings the total “Special Use†list to 12.
If you wish, you could also add low density group care homes to this list. I know that there is at least 1 for sure and actually the coming one on Boulevard. There may be more, but they have not really been discussed before so I’m not sure how to find them. These types of group care homes can have up to six (6) residents and are not considered “special uses†and are a permitted use without exception through out most of Historic Springfield, or all of Jacksonville, for that matter. The licensing for this type of group care home varies a lot depending on actual clients and what the needs are of those clients.
Thanks Strider. I knew you could do it.
low density group care homes
Is that what the one on Perry btw 9th & 10th would be?
No, that would be a rental. My understanding is that it is three apartments.
Question: next door to me stands what appears to be a single-family home (and it was at one time.) I have been in the house and know it has been converted in to three apartments with separate doors, locks, cooking and bathing facilities, etc. but you would not know that from the outside. The renters are generally short-term 1-2 months, some longer, and rent is cash-only. In all but a few cases over the last 18 months, the tenants have been nice, communicative and good neighbors. I know the owner, she's okay and grew up in the house and is having a hard time letting go of the house.
How does this place fit into this discussion, if at all? I'm not inclined to stir anything up because as next-door neighbors go, we've all seen much worse.
It is not a special use.
The question would be, is it a "rooming house" or a legal (or illegal) apartments.
Step One: Check the property record card to see if it is a legal duplex or triplex. (even if it doesn't look like one).
Step Two: Does she advertise? Is there a sign outside that says "rooms for rent?" Do the doors have hasp locks? Apparently there have been structural alterations to the building. These things would give an indication of "rooming house" as we heard last night, if it isn't a legal (or "illegal") apartment.
But to me, this sounds more like apartments than a rooming house situation. (The separate kitchens and baths.) There are probably a boat-load of "illegal" apartments out there including a bunch of garage apartments. Geez. Do we really want to (as Cindi would say) poke that skunk?
Thanks...
Quote from: sheclown on November 06, 2009, 03:44:40 PM
Step Two: Does she advertise? Is there a sign outside that says "rooms for rent?" Do the doors have hasp locks? Apparently there have been structural alterations to the building. These things would give an indication of "rooming house" as we heard last night, if it isn't a legal (or "illegal") apartment.
There are "for rent" signs frequently posted on the tree at the sidewalk in front of the house...
Quote from: sheclown on November 06, 2009, 03:44:40 PM
But to me, this sounds more like apartments than a rooming house situation. (The separate kitchens and baths.) There are probably a boat-load of "illegal" apartments out there including a bunch of garage apartments. Geez. Do we really want to (as Cindi would say) poke that skunk?
You kind of nailed my question, sheclown. I don't necessarily think this is worth "poking". And if I am honest, I have to admit that personal feelings come into it. While I'm not always comfortable with the transient nature of the tenants and the occasional illegal activity (rare), I am okay with many of the tenants and the owner and would not want to send any trouble her way. I'm more inclined to have a frank chat with her and ask if she's aware of the push for code enforcement that might be coming her way.
Good approach PorchCats.
agreed.
A good question to keep in mind is "how long has it been this way?" A case could be made that its use is grandfathered in.
One could also make the case, that just because its grandfathered, doesnt make it right.
if you follow the tube top rule you can never go wrong. "just cause you can, doesn't mean you should"
Quote from: stephendare on November 06, 2009, 10:51:29 PM
Like the sale of controlled substances.
i don't understand
Determining if a house that was cut up into apartments is legally apartments today is not as cut and dried as you might think. First and foremost, when was the work done? If it was cut up over fifty years ago, the apartments themselves may have achieved historic status. There is a large house on West Fourth that has been apartments so long that the historic department has it in its records as being built as apartments. It was a single family house when built. The owner certainly has the option of returning the house to single family or leaving it the historic compliant apartments. Many other houses fit this scenario. In some cases where owners have been told to convert houses from say a four plex back to a single family, they were told wrong and if they had wanted to, they could have fought that determination. There is always a potential conflict between “original use†and “historic useâ€.
Determining if a use is legal or not is another story. If one of these houses cut up into apartments is rented with the intent that the renters are there say for 6 months and a lease of some kind is signed, then they are legal, even if the residents sometimes leave before the end of the lease.
If a house like the supposed Bed & Breakfast on Boulevard, that is cut up into rooms rather than apartments is rented with the same criteria in mind and the entire house has less than five unrelated adults and leases with the intent that the residents will be there for more than say six months, then it could be legal. If there are no leases, if the entire house (kitchen, etc) is not open to all the residents, then it is illegal…actually a truly illegal rooming house.
Quote
if you follow the tube top rule you can never go wrong. "just cause you can, doesn't mean you should"
If we follow Cindi’s simple rule, we can see that:
1) Just be cause a house is “set-up†to be a bed and breakfast doesn’t mean you should. This is actually proved if the house was unable to obtain a license or because it is in a less than desirable area or because it is illegal.
2) Like many things, this is a personal choice once anything illegal is ruled out. If you think you look great in a tube top, by all means wear one. If you do a good job on your legal rental, whether some within the community think you should or not, then by all means you can do it.
Going back to that tube top, even if you think you look great in it doesn’t mean everyone else will. But isn’t that the beauty of life? We each can be our own thing…the laws are what protects us (in theory) from the illegal things so if that person wearing a tube top scares you, don’t worry, you probably scare them too.
It should be relatively easy to get an accurate list of legal special use facilities from the city. The way I read "Sec. 656.369. Springfield performance standards and development criteria." is if a facility did not provide timely information it would not be grandfathered in and not allowed to continue.
Quote
(g) Special uses. Special uses are residential/institutional uses that are no longer permitted in the districts. Such uses may continue if they comply with the standards and criteria of this subsection within one year from the effective date of this legislation. The following uses are identified as special uses: residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents. Beginning November 1, 20008 and thereafter, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
(1) Information showing or depicting the accurate square footage of the facility's livable interior space and number of habitable rooms, as it existed on December 21, 2000; and
(2) Licensure or permit information from the relevant State agency showing continuous operation of the facility from prior to December 21, 2000; and
(3) License or permit information or affidavit if such information is not available as to number of residents authorized to legally occupy the licensed or permitted facility on or before December 21, 2000; and
(4) Number of persons considered by the facility to be occupying the facility as full-time staff and/or their immediate family members.
Those special use facilities which provide the above information in a timely manner are considered legally non-conforming and shall be allowed to continue operation until such time as the legally non-conforming status ceases, as provided in this Chapter.
Quote from: stephendare on November 08, 2009, 04:11:03 PM
For what purposes, Alex?
If the only way you can find them is by these methods, then the idea that they are a problem is a flat out lie.
I edited my post. I meant a list of legal special use facilities (all other special use facilities would then be illegal). This should put the question to rest if there are 8, 10 or 12 of them. There was a difference in count between the SPAR list and Striders list.
I would say that Strider's list is probably more accurate.
My list is accurate...less the one missing one. Ok, I found a way to find it and the list is now complete.
They are all grandfathered and licensed either by the DBPR or the Health Department.
Perhaps their list was an attempt at listing only rooming houses, otherwise I do not know why it is not accurate.
I was told that the list of legal houses was obtained from the city and were the ones that had complied with all the requirements per the compromise last year.
I know a couple not on their list did comply...... Also, the city never notified anyone, we had to and then add in the fact that no one even knew who to give the information too, we had to force the planning department to take it. In other words, do not think that if a facility is not on the "city list", as presented by SPAR Council, that it is illegal.
It has nothing to do with SPAR council, the list was given to the org. by the city. We all have to go on info given as no one can read minds or pull the info out of thin air. The city gave it, SPAR council accepted it in good faith and that was passed on to us residents.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 09, 2009, 10:06:01 AM
It has nothing to do with SPAR council, the list was given to the org. by the city. We all have to go on info given as no one can read minds or pull the info out of thin air. The city gave it, SPAR council accepted it in good faith and that was passed on to us residents.
You've got a catch-22 problem there SG. SPAR has always been the ones making the big stink about this issue and "gathering evidence" and turning all the information over to COJ, plus orchestrating mass-complaint call-ins, etc.
So "COJ's" list no doubt relied heavily on everything SPAR has been spoon-feeding them. If SPAR then runs around claiming "it's COJ's list...", that's kind of ridiculous, because it's been SPAR's issue right from the beginning and most of COJ's info came from SPAR.
No Chris, you've got it wrong as do many people. Most of us know the legal houses and the illegal houses. The legal ones have not been the problem for the most part. The city gave SPAR the most recent list of legal houses (the ones that provided all the needed documentation) and that is the list they provided online. Suspected illegal houses are known because neighbors seeing suspicious behavior have reported them. I have an illegal boarding house a block down from my home. How do I know? I and all the other neighbors for three blocks know because the owner had no window coverings for a long time. Along with visible locks on the doors, including the living room which has been turned into a rentable room, it is a constant revolving door of lowlifes. They show up in cabs at all hours, get out with their suitcases and leave the same way. There is constant turnover. Some are there for days, some weeks and others months. The owner is a real gem that lives in Miami but figured the game out pretty quickly. People ask how this can be done and it's easy. Just start moving folks in. The bums spread the word fast through their street network. Most of these people living in boarding houses have moved in and out of several in the neighborhood. They stay in one for a little while, quit paying rent, get kicked out then move to another. Guys will come back after being away for years and return to places they have stayed in the past. Needless to say it's getting a little confusing for them as things have changed so much. They have to street network a little to find the newest flophouses.
Quote from: Matt M on November 09, 2009, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: strider on November 06, 2009, 03:00:31 PM
This is the actual state licensed rooming houses within the boundaries of Historic Springfield. It is a different list than SPAR Council posted.
1214-1216 N. Main St.â€"Lone Palm Guest House
0
Is this the blue house next to the used car lot?
I believe so.. Mr. Geisel (corrected per Sheclowns post) also owns the one on Laura and used to have others. I believe if you ask people like Phil Neary, you will find those places were always nice. It was a family enterprise for years.
Ray Geisel
They have been in his family since the 60s, I believe. He remembers running around Valerios when he was a little boy and Valerios was a convenience store.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 09, 2009, 10:06:01 AM
It has nothing to do with SPAR council, the list was given to the org. by the city. We all have to go on info given as no one can read minds or pull the info out of thin air. The city gave it, SPAR council accepted it in good faith and that was passed on to us residents.
SG, I said:
I know a couple not on their list did comply...... Also, the city
never notified anyone, we had to and then add in the fact that
no one even knew who to give the information too,
we had to force the planning department to take it. In other words,
do not think that if a facility is not on the "city list", as presented by SPAR Council, that it is illegal.
If someone looks at the list provided to SPAR Council by the city and calls in complaints on a legally licensed facility because it isn't on that list, it will mean nothing except that the owner will be getting a visit and the state or city will waste more of our tax dollars. If they are licensed and in business today, they are legal.
As to pulling it out of thin air or reading minds to get it, try searching on the DBPR site and then PM me and I can tell you how to find it on the Heath Department site. Pretty darn easy actually....all you have to do is care enough to get the true information for yourself. Are you trying to say the people over at SPAR Council aren't up to the task?
Quote from: strider on November 09, 2009, 07:14:13 PM
SG, I said: I know a couple not on their list did comply...... Also, the city never notified anyone, we had to and then add in the fact that no one even knew who to give the information too, we had to force the planning department to take it. In other words, do not think that if a facility is not on the "city list", as presented by SPAR Council, that it is illegal.
If someone looks at the list provided to SPAR Council by the city and calls in complaints on a legally licensed facility because it isn't on that list, it will mean nothing except that the owner will be getting a visit and the state or city will waste more of our tax dollars. If they are licensed and in business today, they are legal.
That is truly sad. Which means the overlay and zoning code means nothing as the city truly does not have the means or record keeping to enforce it. So why even bother to pass the overlay amendment ?
But then the City really does not have to notify any one. Not knowing the law or being ignorant to it does not keep you immune.
Alex, in this case, the fact that the places hold licenses that can be traced back many years sort of has the same effect as "complying" as that was the intent to begin with. The same places that were grandfathered before 1046 are still grandfatherd today.
You are right, in a way, about the notification of the law, however, as this is a zoning issue and not criminal, once they do notify, they must give "reasonable time" to comply. And "reasonable time" could be a long time, depending on circumstance.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 09, 2009, 04:58:43 PM
No Chris, you've got it wrong as do many people. Most of us know the legal houses and the illegal houses. The legal ones have not been the problem for the most part. The city gave SPAR the most recent list of legal houses (the ones that provided all the needed documentation) and that is the list they provided online. Suspected illegal houses are known because neighbors seeing suspicious behavior have reported them. I have an illegal boarding house a block down from my home. How do I know? I and all the other neighbors for three blocks know because the owner had no window coverings for a long time. Along with visible locks on the doors, including the living room which has been turned into a rentable room, it is a constant revolving door of lowlifes. They show up in cabs at all hours, get out with their suitcases and leave the same way. There is constant turnover. Some are there for days, some weeks and others months. The owner is a real gem that lives in Miami but figured the game out pretty quickly. People ask how this can be done and it's easy. Just start moving folks in. The bums spread the word fast through their street network. Most of these people living in boarding houses have moved in and out of several in the neighborhood. They stay in one for a little while, quit paying rent, get kicked out then move to another. Guys will come back after being away for years and return to places they have stayed in the past. Needless to say it's getting a little confusing for them as things have changed so much. They have to street network a little to find the newest flophouses.
Before I got back to the thread, Strider had already addressed this better than I could.
a history lesson for those who are interested.
QuoteSpecial uses. Special uses include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of over six residents
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12174
Heer's an update on how many "Special Uses" there really are:
1214-1216 N. Main St. - One Palm Guest House – still a legal rooming house. The owner is around a lot. This is the address that comes up but I think there is at least one other house attached to the grandfathering.
1152 N. Laura St. - France's Rooms This was converted to a simple rental for the most part. Like it has granite counter tops. Cool place.
1616 N Pearl Street - Ms Carters – this one with a couple of other houses (now closed) was originally for merchant marines, but I know a couple of guys had been there for like ten years or more. I do not know if it is still being operated. I used to live next door and it was never an issue. (Ms Carter lived on the other side of me.)
1120 Hubbard St. - Alco Halfway House (AA) A very cool house with I'd say over 95% of the original features still intact. JFK had dinner there during the 1960 campaign, In 1963 the Doctor donated it to the non-profit to be used as a Halfway house for "skid row" drunks. They also have the little commercial building on the corner as a legal snack bar – anyone can stop in for an affordable cup of Joe or a hamburger.
1222 Hubbard St. - (C. Louise Wilson) Vintage Properties – still being operated by the son I believe.
1733 N. Pearl St. - Home Away From Home – Sober living high density (AA) This is ours, owned and operated by Barbara & Grace, Inc., a 501 c 3 formed by Barbara and Grace, two women who got sober together and decided to give back and help "skid row" drunks back in the sixties. The first Sober House and Detox center in Florida was opened by them on I think Hubbard Street even prior to 1963. Today we have reduced the density from the legal maximums and the guys now cook for themselves. Independence adds to self worth, in our opinion.
217 E 1st St.& 205 E 1st. St. - Dortch's Rooming House – AKA Redwine/ Dunlop. Theses are not great, but not as bad as they once were.
2020 N Main Street - Ms. Lucy's rooming house. Ms. Lucy did pass away, but it is still being operated bu the family. Great House. Lots of stories from long term Springfield residents about living in this house. Ms Lucy was quite the character, in fact her grandmother was the original resident so her mother and in fact herself were born in the house. And died in the house. The picture of JFK riding up main Street that is often seen was taken at this house.
1704-1706 N. Pearl St. - City Houses, Inc. Halfway house (AA) Still open and doing well. It was originally an ACLF but was bought and converted to a lessor use by the current owner. They are well maintained and are well run.
20 W 4th St - Alcoholics Service Center Halfway house (AA) Still open and do well. This was the first detox centers in the country to our knowledge. Today is is simply a halfway house. By the way, I differentiate between High Density Halfway Houses and High Density Sober House because Halfway Houses have commercial kitchens and cooks while in Sober Houses everyone cooks for themselves.
133 W. 6th St. - Ruth's Family Home Away From Home – this was a 7 or more group care home and I believe it has closed.
Peterson's ALF __ 1622 Silver Street _ this was a 7 or more group care home and I believe it has closed.
If I count them correctly, it seems that I was wrong that there are 12 Special Uses, there seems to be only 10 (12 or 13 structures). As there were once 40 to 60 legal special uses, the Overlay seems to be, in fact, doing it's job quite nicely.
So, if there only 10 legal Special Uses, what was the stuff about 50 or 60? Well, for one thing, many can't seem to grasp that some uses are not special uses, but simply uses by right. IE: Simply legal with out any special rules or regulations.
Here's an interesting fact for you. You can not be an illegal Special Use. You can be an illegal use, but Special Uses are used to describe a type of legal business. You can be found to be operating an illegal rooming house, but that is not a special use at that point, it is simply illegal. And it can't make a difference if you rent to Proton Patients or the bum off the street. The Overlay states no new legal rooming houses, in fact, most of Jacksonville does, so there can not be more legal rooming houses than found in the list above.
There were at one time I believe two, maybe three , low density, 6 or fewer, group care homes, AKA nursing homes. These are not special uses, but are a legal use by right, no exception is required though there are various rules that must be followed.
There are also a few of what we call Sober House that are low density (5 unrelated adults or less) who share an annual lease on a house. We only have one at the moment. There may or may not be a few more around, but as they are not ours and are simply legal rentals, I don't know how many or where they might be. By the way, up to 5 med students, nurses, school teachers, ETC are also allowed to share a legal lease. It seems like it would be legal for those once homeless as well.
The bottom line is that while the overlay was indeed structured to reduce ( not forcibly close legal businesses) the number of "Special Uses" it also recognized that certain uses, like regular rentals, low density group care homes (6 or fewer), ETC. are needed and legal to have all over Jacksonville. And, before some make that false claim that they are only in Springfield, they are not. They are all over Jacksonville. And so are many places we call "Special Uses" here. The Springfield Overlay simply happened to name them "Special".