Executive Director of SPAR Council "Comes Out"!

[thekillingwax]

EVERYTHING old is inherently better than anything new. That's why I support eniac computing and electroshock for people with unwholesome thoughts. Back when we replaced all our windows, someone came by and made a comment about us not using "historically appropriate" windows. Kiss my ass, we were here before spar and the "right" windows cost almost four times as much and aren't as secure. Not all of us are here by choice, my family is stuck- we've tried to get out a few times but we're not in one of the desirable houses but it costs just as much to fix and repair.

[stjr]

SPAR-ring just took on new meaning in this thread!

As a dis-interested party, I am trying to think this out as if it was my neighborhood.

Seems the City Council rep (who is?) for this area should get everyone in a room, moderate a nice rational debate, and then attempt to mediate a reasonable solution that "preserves" the area without over-intruding into everyone's living arrangements.  If the council rep isn't up to it, maybe a mediator agreed to by all could handle it.  This likely would mean a compromise on the part of all parties since each side appears to have some valid but apparently conflicting concerns (personal rights, privacy, protection of neighborhood character and values, historic preservation, zoning enforcement...) .  Are they up to it?

[stjr]

Stephen, I don't know any particulars to which you speak.  I was just sizing up the last few days of posts on this and another thread on the subject and trying to offer a constructive and mature solution to a problem.

At the rate things are going otherwise, nothing will change and everyone will be unhappy.

Good luck.

[vicupstate]

I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further.  Things are not always as they seem.  You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I. 

HOWEVER, if she stands by what this letter seems to imply, and that she does not see her role as a DEFENDER of historic preservation, then she needs to resign immedeiately. I TOTALLY AGREE that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for her to continue in her position if her initial response is to tear-down rather than preserve the historic buildings and fabric of the neighborhood. Your point that this is the SPRINGFIELD PRESERVATION and RESTORATION organization is well taken.

 

[fsu813]

As I posted yesterday:

You may want to get all the facts before you start accusing, Stephen. But that doesn't seem to be your MO.

I don't have any personal knowledge about the circumstances of the demo or the letter and neither do you.

Just a suggestion.



Sheclown,

yes, I know who Joel is. Very well, actually. Personally. 

From someone who is actually involved in the process and has done some research on it......

"The majority of the demos that have been brought up recently have been done so by the owners. The city is cracking down on negligent property owners and the ultimatum is, bring the property up to code or demolish it. They either don't want to spend the money for needed repairs or can't afford to and ask for demo as the cheaper option. I hear a lot of complaining about the situation but lets hear some solutions. This issue is not in the hands of SPAR, RAP or the city. The property owners are the ones responsible, at fault and in control. The way the laws are now the city cannot force someone to repair or keep up their property.

How long is long enough for a house to sit, 5, 15, 30 years? I don't know one person who would choose demo over restoration but the fact is restoration in some cases is not happening. The Lampru Apartments were a perfect example. They sat in disrepair for years until they finally started to cave in on themselves. It wasn't SPAR or the city's fault. It was the owner who allowed the demolition by neglect and no one else had any control of stopping the process. My point is, it is unproductive to wring our hands and blame those that have no control to stop the problem.

A demo was recently granted to an owner/developer (not SRG!!!) so he could build a new home on the property. He had a contractor and engineer's report saying that the property was not structurally sound, along with a report from the city's property safety dept. So how can we fight that?

I think that people don't understand the roles of the Historic Commission, Property Safety Dept., General Council and Special Master. The Historic Commission can enforce the interiors guidelines for alterations and additions but is trumped by Property Safety and The Specciall Master when it comes to safety, non compliance and demolition. I am on the HPC along with 3 other new members and we are working with General Council to change the laws but it won't happen overnight.

And way to go Joe for trying to make me look bad. I have been on the Commission for 11 months now and I have not seen you at a single hearing. If you had been in attendance you would know that I have been the most outspoken member against demolition, on many times the one dissenting vote and the initiator with General Council and staff to get changes made to the laws. Go figure."


Joe, in this letter, is Strider. Who has a small coalition to rid the world of the plague that is SPAR. A crusade, of sorts.

[Sigma]

That's why the next SPAR General Meeting should be interesting.

[JeffreyS]

FSU813 Stephen did post the letter for us to read. In the letter Joel is accused of helping approve one demo and deny two others. And he required evaluations(how over the top ) before Historic properties where demoed. This is the opposition letter and that is the way it is stated. Sounds like Joel is the line of defense on Springfield preservation.

[fsu813]

post #35

[thelakelander]

I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further.  Things are not always as they seem.  You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I.

I agree.  I don't think this is the place to toss around accusations.  While the email is certainly damning, further insight is needed to properly put things in their rightful place.  My suggestion would be to go down to SPAR's office or go to a board meeting and address them directly.

[Jth]

I would suggest you give DeSpain an opportunity to explain this letter before posting further.  Things are not always as they seem.  You might have something out of context and I'm sure if that is the case, she would not appreciate your postings, and neither would I.

I agree.  I don't think this is the place to toss around accusations.  While the email is certainly damning, further insight is needed to properly put things in their rightful place.  My suggestion would be to go down to SPAR's office or go to a board meeting and address them directly.

That apparently isn't how Mr. Dare likes to operate. He seems to conjure up the worst possible scenario in his mind and then post on here as if its reality.

Stephen, did you ever call Sean Kelly about your other conspiracy theory? You know the one that I basically said was not even legislatively possible? Or were you more interested in slinging Louise DeSpain's name through the mud?

[Johnny]

I've been reading this on both the SPAR forum and here. I agree that further insight may be needed to be sure of what is being requested in the email. Going to SPAR's office and/or a board meeting at this point isn't really acceptable though. I think Louise or SPAR should address the forums and put this thing to rest. I don't know how that email could mean much other than what the words seem to be suggesting, but I'm listening. I don't believe we should advocate destroying houses in any quick step process and find it odd the people supposedly fighting to save properties is suggesting otherwise. Destruction cannot be undone, it should be reviewed by the professionals!

[untarded]

I agree with some of the opinions that this should have been investigated a bit further and both sides of the story published simultaneously.  The email itself appears to be pretty damning but by running with one side of the story by someone who has a personal financial interest (historically) in this makes this less than credible 'reporting'.

Stephen, I have enjoyed and been impressed by many of the opinions and discussion brought about here on MJ by yourself and your colleagues but this story is a bit disappointing. I'm certainly not saying there is no merit to this issue.  As someone who took a pretty good one sided beating by Folio a few years back I would hope you can appreciate getting everyone's response on this before running with it.

I'm tired of both the far left and far right rhetoric filling mainstream media and expect better from MJ.

[Steve]

I'm tired of both the far left and far right rhetoric filling mainstream media and expect better from MJ.

This is not a story run by MetroJacksonville (this thread was started by Strider), and the views expressed in this thread are not necessarily those of MetroJacksonville as a group.  However, individual members of MetroJacksonville are welcome to post their personal views.

[fsu813]

stephen,

i said the same thing on post #3, where's my credit for "keeping it real" ?!?     =P

[Dog Walker]

Someone comes to meeting and claims that a historic building is structurally unsound so that it should be torn down.  Joel, whose job it is to preserve historic buildings and see that the laws are followed, asks the someone to get a qualified, professional opinion about the state of the structure.  He's just doing his job properly, Folks! 

If it inconveniences you, then tough beans!  Sell the building and move on.  Oh, poor thing, you are going to lose money on the deal?  So who guaranteed you a profit on your poor judgment?