342 West 10th Street
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4814568963_8a583e66cd_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4827668994_7ffd7ac2d2_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4827669152_4c127f16c7_b.jpg)
This is BS, just total BS and someone needs to move Elaine to the suburbs-period. It's just that simple!
Historic Preservation Commission minutes
April 28, 2010
SheClown, are there any minutes where the HPC actually said NO? I have as yet to see any, which is strange since they only exist to PRESERVE historic properties.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2010, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 25, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
SheClown, are there any minutes where the HPC actually said NO? I have as yet to see any, which is strange since they only exist to PRESERVE historic properties.
Wait a minute.
Are you guys saying that the Historic Preservation Commission has created a way to fast track demolitions of historic structures? And this Elaine Lancaster is working with the Historic Preservation Commission to demolish them?
I am saying I have as yet seen one property Elaine has brought to them that they have said NO to. I have seen several meeting minutes on properties they could of easily have made an arguement to say NO, but instead chose not to. I esp enjoy the comments "its just that simple" in reference to taking down a 100+ old building. It should NOT be "just that simple", and those peeps should be removed from their post if that is their attitude. Demolition of a historic structure should be difficult, and take a lot of time, records, and thought.
I'll keep looking and post what I find.
Please note that no one, not Lisa Simon (Past SPAR Council board member, SRG favored real estate agent and current HPC member) nor Brenda Boydson (past assistant to Louise DeSpain, current Executive Director (Louise's replacement) of SPAR Council) said one word to oppose the demolition and in fact, Lisa voted for the demolition.
With the community of Springfield's "preservation" organization and one of Springfield's citizens sitting on the HPC both supporting and voting for demolition, we can not expect anything but demolition approvals from the HPC. SPAR Council and the HPC have just been basically doing Code Enforcement's bidding.
Lisa & Brenda did speak up for 1925 Liberty Street.
Brenda spoke about attempting to find a new owner and Lisa told the commission that the neighborhood was beginning to get upset about the number of demolitions.
It still was put on the Formal Track to Demolition with a deferment of six months time. There is good info in here about what they can and cannot do. Most alarming to me is a reference to "the 200" and it looks to me like a reference to a list of 200 Formal Track for demolition homes, but that is just conjecture.
Can we get the national group involved to help us put a stop to this? I have seen where they get involved in other neighborhoods.
Lisa & Brenda did speak up for 1647 Pearl Street as well. You can "hear" the frustration in Lisa's statements.
All it got was a small delay, but the demolition is still on.
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 25, 2010, 02:25:27 PM
Can we get the national group involved to help us put a stop to this? I have seen where they get involved in other neighborhoods.
Quoting myself LOL!
I am going to write to each and everyone of these contacts to see if we can get some help, it is clear we will not get it within the city or local preservation groups/boards.
http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/registration/fhc/
Great idea!
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2010, 02:06:37 PM
Who is this Elaine Lancaster person? Is she with Historic Preservation?
Code Compliance Enforcement Dept according to the minutes in one of these threads (specific title not mentioned).
It is astounding how nonchalant these people sound during these hearings.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2010, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 25, 2010, 03:33:16 PM
Lisa & Brenda did speak up for 1647 Pearl Street as well. You can "hear" the frustration in Lisa's statements.
All it got was a small delay, but the demolition is still on.
Hmm. what was happening in april?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6411.0.html
Quote from: stephendare on March 12, 2010, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: strider on October 14, 2009, 06:37:34 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/4011983531_662ed22ee0_b.jpg)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8027.0.html
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7801.0.html
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8044.0.html
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8035.0.html
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7929.0.html
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7915.0.html
This is beyond sickening .. This lady at SPAR needs to be REMOVED. I am sick of these people who have zero regard for these buildings. WTF? How do they end up in these positions?
As a reminder. There are two options that are given from Code Compliance in regards to our homes in Historic Springfield that are not livable:
1. Repair
2. Demolish
And you basically have 6 months to do so as all the homes going before the HPC are being put on the Formal Track which means at around the 6 month mark if the home is still "condemned," the demolition process will be started, which means the house will go down in about 3 months.
It is evident Code Compliance makes the decisions, and HPC just rubber stamps with approval their requests.
Keep them off formal track one way or another. My motto ;)
DERAIL THE FORMAL TRACK
That means going head to head with Code Compliance and Safety.
Formal Track for Demolition.
Keep in mind that is the full name of formal track.
Oh, and by the way, the "head to head" part? Necessary.
I might be prepared for that with a little support.
Many are onboard.
A relentless pursuit.
Board, secure, monitor. It's simple.
Quote from: iloveionia on July 25, 2010, 10:26:12 PM
A relentless pursuit.
Board, secure, monitor. It's simple.
Ionia... This should be an option, instead of repair or demolish, especially if the home is structurally sound, but not inhabitable for whatever reason.
If every major city in the US implemented "repair or demolish" there would be nothing left. It is absurd.
Timkin,
I agree 100%
But somewhere along around 2007 Code Compliance took over and their solution became to 'abate by demolition' most recently, home after home has been requested to be put on the formal track for demolition.
Code Compliance is following a policy they created.
I honestly don't understand.
I won't understand regardless.
Continuing to demolish what is left in Springfield is wrong.
HPC, well, HPC, where are they? Historic Preservation Commission???????
Definitely not.
I could not agree more. For all we know, HPC is directed to abstain from participating in this.. It would not surprise me if some of this took place around or after the time PS4's demo request was struck down , by HPC , and presented to Council.. By that time, I had the Florida Trust and the National Trust breathing down their backs.. Who is to say if the School will be saved, but at least at that point, the developer backed off on the demo.. As everyone knows, Council kept deferring the bill, it finally was kicked out , and was sent back to HPC. I would suggest getting at least the Florida Trust on to these properties. What can it hurt?
Quote from: Timkin on July 25, 2010, 10:55:46 PM
I could not agree more. For all we know, HPC is directed to abstain from participating in this.. It would not surprise me if some of this took place around or after the time PS4's demo request was struck down , by HPC , and presented to Council.. By that time, I had the Florida Trust and the National Trust breathing down their backs.. Who is to say if the School will be saved, but at least at that point, the developer backed off on the demo.. As everyone knows, Council kept deferring the bill, it finally was kicked out , and was sent back to HPC. I would suggest getting at least the Florida Trust on to these properties. What can it hurt?
Uptown...do you know anything about this??? Seems promising.
That was the link to contacts I posted earlier.
Whatever happens to Springfield, can happen in Riverside and Avondale. San Marco for that matter.
This is why, Stephen , I maintain that the players in Code Enforcement , HPC and Council need to change.. This is beyond absurd..
If anyone needs my contacts w Florida Trust, PM me,.. would be more than happy to provide that..
Reading the minutes, I find several disturbing issues.
First, not one question or discussion by the commissioners. Surely, they could have probed this a bit more. Are they automatons or thinkers? If they are supposed to safeguard historic structures, they should demand to know a lot more before letting one go away.
Elaine may be a noble servant, I don't know. But, based on the transcript, she doesn't sound very convincing in her knowledge of structures and is relying mostly on superficial appearances. Did she even go inside this building? Shouldn't a contractor and/or engineer be requested to provide information on what it would take/cost to stabilize or mitigate the issues?
If there are prostitutes, that is a JSO issue. Where are they? Demolish the building, let the weeds grow, and the druggies, homeless, and prostitutes will just move back in. They aren't interested in the building as much as a neighborhood that lets them live without harassment. I don't see where a demolition is going to change that.
Lastly, why doesn't the City have the authority to stabilize the property and lien it just like when they cut the weeds, do the demo, etc.? Did anyone see if the cost of stabilization is cheaper than demo? The companion part to this is when the City is forced to do the stabilization or consider a demo, it should have the power to seize the property and immediately put it up for an auction sale to hopefully attract a more caring owner. Any proceeds left after paying off City liens, fines, fees, interest, etc. can revert to the exiting owner.
I guarantee you that if owners knew the property could be swiped from them at a bargain price, they might be a bit more motivated to preserve the property. Right now, you have a system that rewards them with a loophole around historic preservation by letting the property rot in place. This makes no sense.
The Springfield and Riverside/Avondale City Council reps should be requested to write legislation along the lines of what I just suggested.
We need a political solution, an ordinance which protects historic properties.
Agree ...and Florida Trust and/or National Trust may be able to coach you on how to make that happen .
Quote from: sheclownWe need a political solution, an ordinance which protects historic properties.
I couldn't agree more, and it's a darn shame that the historic committee doesn't seem to be doing this...and of course, in the past, spar has not been one of the supporters of demolition. Something needs to be done, and why isn't Gaffney doing all he can to stop what's happening?
Why would Gaffney be against what SPAR wanted? He was listening to Louise speaking on behalf of the neighborhood. I'm sure he felt he was doing what his constituents wanted.
And has spar, under the new leadership contacted him to get support to NOT demo?
Good question.
Let's set up a meeting with Gaffney ourselves
Quote from: stjr on July 25, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
Reading the minutes, I find several disturbing issues.
Lastly, why doesn't the City have the authority to stabilize the property and lien it just like when they cut the weeds, do the demo, etc.? Did anyone see if the cost of stabilization is cheaper than demo? The companion part to this is when the City is forced to do the stabilization or consider a demo, it should have the power to seize the property and immediately put it up for an auction sale to hopefully attract a more caring owner. Any proceeds left after paying off City liens, fines, fees, interest, etc. can revert to the exiting owner.
As I understand it, the City has the legal authority to do this now...just not the will.
National Trust? Sure, let's get them involved. But I think the local media should be involved. I think we should scream out loud. At one time, SPAR sued the City over this. Maybe another lawsuit is in order.
Good idea....the media should without a doubt be involved in this and we all need to apply pressure to whomever we can to stop the destruction of our neighborhood. Perhaps we can organize some sort of protest and of course, contact the media to let them know....thoughts?
I think the first step is to talk to the HPC and voice our concerns. They may not even realize how valuable these homes are to us. All they have heard is that "we" want them down. Let's give them the chance and see what happens.
Let's ask them to go to OGC office and get a moratorium on demo's until a political solution is found.
We need to get back to the 2007 ordinance which changed the way condemned properties were treated and rework that ordinance.
as iloveionia stated:
QuotePlease send an email of opposition to Lisa in the HPC Office:
sheppard@coj.net
She and this office is our voice of reason, support, and opposition.
If one needs to have an EPA certification before touching building components -- what precautions is the city of Jacksonville taking to ensure our safety while performing this demolition?
I don't know about you guys, but I'm scared....I certainly hope they are considering all of the small children with developing bodies who live nearby and might inhale some lead dust.
The media should identify Historic Landmarks in danger in Springfield and everywhere else... This is an important topic for Springfield.. the few pieces that stand in LaVilla and Brooklyn, and every other area of Jacksonville.
gone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFVE8kf2BcA
Look at it from the bright side: Only about 100 buildings to demolish and all of Springfield will be in compliance with code! Enough empty land for a herd of goats. Or what about a city airport? Ionia could be the runway.
that was such a great building. definately a "contributing" building.
COJ isn't adhering to this 'moratorium' it seems just as many are coming down after as before.
I am frankly, not surprised at all. just saddened. This seems to be the trend and the shape of more to come down. In this regard, Jacksonville seems doomed.
The system is terribly broken.
The mere fact that we can't find out how many homes are actually on the formal track speaks volumns, IMHO. It keeps us running around like Chicken Little only this particular sky truly is falling.
Something really stinks and the neighborhood is getting royally screwed.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/heartpublicwarning.jpg)
What formal track? There is no such thing. (this from MCCD.)
There is no list. I've asked a zillion times.
There are two lists: unsafe structures list, and (forget actual name) but the list of homes that have violations, but are not condemned (yet.)
Quote from: iloveionia on July 28, 2011, 10:28:34 AM
What formal track? There is no such thing. (this from MCCD.)
There is no list. I've asked a zillion times.
There are two lists: unsafe structures list, and (forget actual name) but the list of homes that have violations, but are not condemned (yet.)
And this is why I firmly believe the city is at risk in a lawsuit. Once you read the HPC minutes, you see that per MCCD there was indeed a formal track and houses were put on it. In my opinion, any house taken with an approval by HPC to be put on the formal track was taken illegally (with false information) and the owners should sue for compensation. At least that would wake up the city up to what the MCCD has been and is really doing.
Maybe StephenDare and Chris can take the case. Arent they lawyers?
I wish someone would challenge and could put a stop to this. It would be one thing if this building (and literally hundreds like it ) were really in danger of collapse. That was not the case here at all. One more landmark destroyed. The only one making out is the demolition contractor.
If anyone is truly interested, I am always happy to talk. But I really don't know what the damages would be, or who the plaintiff would be? A big part of the problem here has been that the owners have usually been on board with what's happening, if they aren't the actual ones pushing for the demo.
Several times, the owners have been the actual ones begging for the demo before HPC. One guy wanted to add onto his yard, another (the doctor) has an agenda that I believe probably includes putting up apartments since he appears to be combining the lots in a row. Out of all of these demos, there was only one guy who wasn't completely onboard with it (the one on Liberty) and I don't know if his has come down yet. Normally, the owners are either fully complicit in it, or just don't care. And the one who did care IIRC had no money, filing fees alone are $400 now.
There is a whole bag of tricks you can use, I have rarely seen code enforcement get anything right when it comes to notice and due process. Legally these all probably could have been stopped. But I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get these people to take any action, when they're usually the ones who want it demolished in the first place. Why people buy in a historic neighborhood only to behave this way, I haven't a clue. But it isn't just COJ doing this, as of late most of the owners seem complicit in it, either because they want the land for something else or don't want to deal with code fines and/or maintaining the property.
While there are indeed some who want to demo their house, actually very few start off that way. It is the rolling fines that change their minds. And the constant harassment from MCCD. In one case, the harassment was on a house that looks totally complete and gorgeous on the outside and is well maintained at all times but the inside was not complete so the rolling fines were being threatened if not already accruing. It is scare tactics and nothing more. In fact, I recently got told that a couple were informed that if they agreed to demo their house, the rolling fines would be waived. Second hand info I'm afraid, but interesting all the same.
You also have to remember that a group was telling buyers of these at risk houses that if they bought them, they could certainly tear that "eyesore" down. Many got to with the support of those charged with preserving this historic district. Shameful at best. Criminal in my eyes.
When you know the houses in question and you read the HPC minutes of the sworn testimony from MCCD officers, you see that the formal track was real at least to them and the HPC and that the houses were all swaying back and forth on their own, missing all their structure and ready to fall down on innocent passersby. In the very least, we need to find it a bit odd that the "formal track" can take a year or more and not one single house as fallen on a person walking by it.
In one case where I was able to see the professional engineer's report, the engineer hired by MCCD to support their claims of a house ready to crumble, the engineer claimed that a strategic pier was missing. I looked for the missing pier and found that there never was one at that location. The area was always cantilevered out the three ish feet. Whether the engineer was innocently mistaken or purposefully misleading at the request of MCCD, I can not know. Even with the Patterson Apartments, while the structural issues looked very bad, they were only about 10 to 15% of the cost of rehabilitation. In most cases, it is even less than that. In the case of the house taken for social reasons by a current SPAR Council board member, it was a less than the cost of just buying the new a/c equipment.
Back on subject a bit, the "formal Track" was presented as a real thing. When we tried to appeal the demotion on the Patterson apartments when the actual COA was issued recently, we were told that we could not appeal it because the actual time period to appeal had passed long ago. The actual approval was done at the HPC meeting when the house was placed on the formal track. When we pointed out that the law states the appeal time limit begins upon the last person who has to sign off on the COA and that happened just now, we got told the COA was just a courtesy and did not count. It seems the non-existent "formal track" is pretty real to me as they are using it to continue to take houses. Of course, I could be mistaken that a city department providing false and mis-leading information to get approval for something is illegal and perfectly acceptable to our legal system. But I hope not, for all our sakes.
Bottom line is that it seems the city is using it's interpretations of the laws to protect itself from something. And from past experience, they only seem to respond well to lawsuits they might lose, a law suit is the only way to stop the demolitions of houses on the non-existent "formal track" that they used false information to get approval for. It would be best if owners of lost houses or at risk houses brought the suit, but I also think a preservation organization could as well.
And of course, I'm not a lawyer, just a pissed off preservationist and resident of this city, so what do I know?
I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield. Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved. Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed. Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing. A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely. As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight. That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.
What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes. Without these, all of our property value will decline.
Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over? Because being in a historic district has value.
After being away from MetroJacksonville on a hiatus status, I just came back and I see this completely fucking bullshit fact that Patterson Apartments has been completely demolished.
Words cannot contain how much angry and furious I am. Call me selfish, but if I ever run into one of officials who supported this demolition, considered yourself warned because I am not going to be Mr. Nice Guy and will rub the question of WHY? in your face.
I just feel like my soul just got gnawed by the tragedies happening in Springfield. It is not only the charm Springfield is slowly losing, but considering the fact Springfield falls under the jurisdiction of National registered historic district.
Come on, those of you who wish to support this continuing trend of reckless and blasphemy demolitions on some "formal tracks", please have a heart because you are a human. Don't ever forget about that.
Home is what you make home out of it. There are people who loves Springfield who are trying to make their homes their own and their neighbors.
-Josh
Quote from: avs on July 30, 2011, 09:32:30 AM
I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield. Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved. Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed. Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing. A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely. As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight. That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.
What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes. Without these, all of our property value will decline.
Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over? Because being in a historic district has value.
There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.
Quote from: strider on July 30, 2011, 08:21:09 AM
While there are indeed some who want to demo their house, actually very few start off that way. It is the rolling fines that change their minds. And the constant harassment from MCCD. In one case, the harassment was on a house that looks totally complete and gorgeous on the outside and is well maintained at all times but the inside was not complete so the rolling fines were being threatened if not already accruing. It is scare tactics and nothing more. In fact, I recently got told that a couple were informed that if they agreed to demo their house, the rolling fines would be waived. Second hand info I'm afraid, but interesting all the same.
You also have to remember that a group was telling buyers of these at risk houses that if they bought them, they could certainly tear that "eyesore" down. Many got to with the support of those charged with preserving this historic district. Shameful at best. Criminal in my eyes.
When you know the houses in question and you read the HPC minutes of the sworn testimony from MCCD officers, you see that the formal track was real at least to them and the HPC and that the houses were all swaying back and forth on their own, missing all their structure and ready to fall down on innocent passersby. In the very least, we need to find it a bit odd that the "formal track" can take a year or more and not one single house as fallen on a person walking by it.
In one case where I was able to see the professional engineer's report, the engineer hired by MCCD to support their claims of a house ready to crumble, the engineer claimed that a strategic pier was missing. I looked for the missing pier and found that there never was one at that location. The area was always cantilevered out the three ish feet. Whether the engineer was innocently mistaken or purposefully misleading at the request of MCCD, I can not know. Even with the Patterson Apartments, while the structural issues looked very bad, they were only about 10 to 15% of the cost of rehabilitation. In most cases, it is even less than that. In the case of the house taken for social reasons by a current SPAR Council board member, it was a less than the cost of just buying the new a/c equipment.
Back on subject a bit, the "formal Track" was presented as a real thing. When we tried to appeal the demotion on the Patterson apartments when the actual COA was issued recently, we were told that we could not appeal it because the actual time period to appeal had passed long ago. The actual approval was done at the HPC meeting when the house was placed on the formal track. When we pointed out that the law states the appeal time limit begins upon the last person who has to sign off on the COA and that happened just now, we got told the COA was just a courtesy and did not count. It seems the non-existent "formal track" is pretty real to me as they are using it to continue to take houses. Of course, I could be mistaken that a city department providing false and mis-leading information to get approval for something is illegal and perfectly acceptable to our legal system. But I hope not, for all our sakes.
Bottom line is that it seems the city is using it's interpretations of the laws to protect itself from something. And from past experience, they only seem to respond well to lawsuits they might lose, a law suit is the only way to stop the demolitions of houses on the non-existent "formal track" that they used false information to get approval for. It would be best if owners of lost houses or at risk houses brought the suit, but I also think a preservation organization could as well.
And of course, I'm not a lawyer, just a pissed off preservationist and resident of this city, so what do I know?
+1
And this is particularly egregious, because this building was solid brick. As you know, being a contractor, the whole roof and wooden inner structure can be complete toast and the property will still stand without endangering anything else.
The ONLY thing that makes a house fall down in Springfield is a bulldozer, and even that took several attempts on the Patterson.
As Joe points out, anyone who has actually renovated one of these knows that the structural stuff is cheap. I can't remember how many beams and joists were rotten under mine, but I would have gladly traded joists for the trimwork that the termites had devoured. Apparently mine was just waiting to fall on someone as well.
Quote from: hooplady on July 30, 2011, 12:09:33 PM
The ONLY thing that makes a house fall down in Springfield is a bulldozer, and even that took several attempts on the Patterson.
As Joe points out, anyone who has actually renovated one of these knows that the structural stuff is cheap. I can't remember how many beams and joists were rotten under mine, but I would have gladly traded joists for the trimwork that the termites had devoured. Apparently mine was just waiting to fall on someone as well.
Amen!
This needs to be stopped . Not just for Springfield but for any Historic Building. Too many are already gone, so many are still endangered, and it seems only a handful of citizens get this and really want it stopped.
they are gone. but well, who cares. great empty lots. maybe Shands can get more parking now.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 30, 2011, 10:22:51 AM
Quote from: avs on July 30, 2011, 09:32:30 AM
I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield. Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved. Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed. Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing. A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely. As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight. That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.
What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes. Without these, all of our property value will decline.
Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over? Because being in a historic district has value.
There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.
You don't suppose someone at the Federal level would be willing to drop a load of bricks on the city and property owners for violating the Federally designated historic district? Whos ear would you drop a bug into to get some interest where there is also some clout?
Is the cooperation of the owner required to register a building as a landmark?
Quote from: Ralph W on August 02, 2011, 06:59:30 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 30, 2011, 10:22:51 AM
Quote from: avs on July 30, 2011, 09:32:30 AM
I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield. Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved. Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed. Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing. A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely. As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight. That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.
What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes. Without these, all of our property value will decline.
Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over? Because being in a historic district has value.
There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.
You don't suppose someone at the Federal level would be willing to drop a load of bricks on the city and property owners for violating the Federally designated historic district? Whos ear would you drop a bug into to get some interest where there is also some clout?
The district is registered, but the individual houses in it are not. You might have an argument that, once you reach a certain number of demolitions, the district has been destroyed. The easiest thing to do to stop rolling fines and/or a demolition, depending on the circumstances, is for the owner of the subject property to sue COJ. But that's a catch-22, because if they had the resources to do that, they would have probably cured the violations and it would be a moot point.
But an alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them. Stephen Dare knows where all sorts of history happened, often that is sufficient. You can most certainly register an individual house if it has historic significance, this is my family home;
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk137/chriswufgator/44e9fd98.jpg)
Once it is registered, you would be playing by a different set of rules. There are application criteria and a review, I am familiar with the process. I am also familiar with the consequences of altering the property. Florida may have a requirement that NRHP nominations go through the local HPC, at which point it is a very good thing Lisa Simon is now off that board. Another option is to band together to fill the 3 open HPC seats with neighborhood-friendly people who wouldn't approve bogus demolitions. That option costs nothing.
QuoteThe district is registered, but the individual houses in it are not. You might have an argument that, once you reach a certain number of demolitions, the district has been destroyed
That's what I was trying to say :)
Quotean alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them.
I like this idea too. I don't know what it entails and I don't think it has been tried before.
Quote from: avs on August 02, 2011, 08:56:22 AM
Quotean alternate route to throw a monkey wrench into the works for MCCD is probably to figure out a way to register the individual at-risk properties before the City demolishes them.
I like this idea too. I don't know what it entails and I don't think it has been tried before.
It's been tried before, and works well. My house is on the National Register because a proposed bridge project was going to take it through eminent domain and demolish it to make room for the approach. It is a historic house and definitely qualified for registration anyway, but we never would have done it had it not been for the threat of demolition. Several neighbors did the same thing, at which point the city scrapped the bridge. Which was just pork, it wasn't needed anyway.
But it's certainly been done before, and works like a charm.
Quote from: movedsouth on August 02, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
Is the cooperation of the owner required to register a building as a landmark?
Not necessarily, often properties are nominated over the objection of their actual owners. To see a case study in this, look at what all happened with the Bridge of Lions. For an individual house, having an actively dissenting voice during the process wouldn't make things easy, it would be better if everyone were onboard.
So are there any lawyers out there willing to donate some time to help owners that are not able to bank role a law suite like that?
Maybe JALA could do something? It's not just time that would need to be donated, it costs real money for filing fees and service, court reporters, etc. Even if you're just trying to stop a demo through an administrative appeal within COJ, you'd need to hire an engineer as an expert to rebut COJ's engineering report. It really adds up, you're talking thousands. Time is one thing, the actual costs are another. Depending on the circumstances, if other people were also willing to volunteer their time in the right capacities, or if people could donate to cover the actual costs, then it could work.
And if the facts are right, you could certainly do a suit over a completed wrongful demolition on a contingency basis, because then there is a way to recover those costs. But if you're attempting to stop an impending demolition through a dec action, then all of this is really a lot of money that you don't recover if you win. Most of these property owners don't have any money or they would have cured the violations already. And the ones who do have money always seem to be the ones with ulterior motives, like the good doctor, or SRG, e.g. the type of people who for years have been the ones showing up before the HPC begging to have their own property demolished. They're certainly not interested in helping.
It's really a pickle, because there are so many properties involved at one time. This would never happen in Riverside because RAP would never allow it. But in Springfield, SPAR has been in bed with demolishing the historic structures, actively encouraging it behind the scenes, for a decade. Now they've allegedly stopped (the truth of which claim is debatable), but after a decade of this mess there are still a ton of demolitions in the pipeline. There is really no easy solution to this. If this mothballing proposal doesn't get approved, then I think this will get worse before it gets better.
There are 3 open seats on the HPC presently. The HPC has the ultimate authority to approve or deny demolitions.
1 + 1 = 2 here, people...we need to make sure those seats go to the right people...
Whatever happened with Joe's application?
Quote from: avs on August 02, 2011, 10:29:06 AM
Whatever happened with Joe's application?
That's a good question.
I believe they are required to fill an open seat within 60 or 90 days (I don't remember which off the top of my head), absent a lack of applicants. If he submitted his application and it has been more than 60 days, then he is entitled to some answers. He is certainly qualified to serve, he's actually a licensed contractor. And we know there are open seats...
Going back to individual registration, Mike Trautmann told me one could register any house in the historic district individually because it is an historic district. If that's the case, perhaps it doesn't have to be individually historically significant or architecturally significant. It may be worth looking into. At one time, he had the paperwork to do it.
From http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/faq.html - Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. *****However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria.*******
Properties are nominated to the National Register by the State Historic Preservation Officer of the State in which the property is located,
Florida
Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Historical Resources
R.A. Gray Building
500 S. Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
850-488-1480
jmatthews@mail.dos.state.fl
I don't honestly remember who told me this but as I understand it, you can't single out an individual property within a historic district for separate historic designation.
Quote from: Springfield Chicken on August 02, 2011, 01:47:02 PM
I don't honestly remember who told me this but as I understand it, you can't single out an individual property within a historic district for separate historic designation.
You can if you can show it is independently historically significant. District registrations and individual registrations don't really have much to do with each other. It's the individual registration that provides protection, district registrations do nothing to protect the individual properties. But there is no reason you can't have both.