Potential Demolition in Avondale

[Dog Walker]

As pleased as we all were at the outcome, I was a bit disappointed that there were so few Metojax folk in attendance.  There was a SPAR person there (thanks)who also expressed a let down that she was the only Springfield person there.

After hearing the remarks, we all expected a 4-3 vote.  My feeling is that Joost truly changed his mind and that Corrigan carried the rest.

Let's hope that Harden's influence doesn't see this decision overturned at the full Council level.  Doubtful, but has been done before.

Thank you, Councilman Corrigan!  

[Dog Walker]

Is Paul Hardin finally losing his "touch"..... on our politicians shoulders? 

God, lets hope so!  His "touch" is foul!  Has he ever represented anyone who was trying to do good for the city?

[stjr]

I thought existing homes such as this could be affordably and readily retrofitted with hurricane clips and other modifications to assure compliance with modern hurricane codes.  Why didn't the owner/Harden consider that?  It's a lot cheaper than destroying the otherwise competent structure and building a new one.  Just another slight of hand by Mr. Harden, to me.

[grimss]

Going forward, how much disrepair can Mr. Lamb allow his house to fall into?

If the city's doing its job, then the code enforcement officer for the district will be keeping an eye on the property and applying fines where deserved. The owner, conceivably, could elect to ignore the fines and have them slapped as liens on the property.  One of the council members, in refuting Holt's proposed amendment, said one of the properties in his district has accrued more than $200K in fines, but the owner still does nothing to remedy conditions.

This may well prove to be a case where peer pressure is the only thing capable of effecting actual change.  I know the owner is disappointed and probably feeling pretty belligerent (especially after having to pay Harden so much $ for a not-very-good job). However, he also happens to live just a block over and about two lots away from the Greenwood property, so if he lets it deteriorate into an eyesore, his family will have to see it every day as they back down their driveway.

[stjr]

I heard that after something like 20 years, City nuisance liens are no longer enforceable/valid.  Can anyone confirm this?

[Dog Walker]

You got it!  The whole "structural" issue was a last, desperate, thin argument for the demolition.  It was correctly pointed out that if this house, 1920's, was dangerous because it did not meet 1994 building codes, then all of the houses in all of the historic districts could be demolished for the same reason.

Think how many hurricanes our 1880's to 1950's houses in our historic districts have survived.  I have even had a reduction in my wind storm insurance because my 1910 house has a hipped roof which has been shown to withstand hurricane winds better than standard, gable-end roofs.

[Dog Walker]

The city's "fines" are a joke.  When the property changes hand they are waived.  Otherwise they would never sell.  Legally the city can only put a lien on the property, not go after the owner's other assets.  Rubber teeth, those fines.

[lindab]

I was at the meeting too and was surprised at how little some councilmen understand about historic houses and historic neighborhoods. One councilman clearly felt that if a modern duplicate of the structure were made then that should satisfy everyone. Even though Holt was the only vote for demolition today, it is clear that some of these councilmen could be persuaded to join him. 

[Debbie Thompson]

I agree. I was really concerned about the discussion around the possibility of building a new house if the historic home was demolished.  One council person (sorry, don't remember which one) asked what the affect on the surrounding values would be...would it increase the value of the homes around it if a new home replaced the existing home...would values decrease if a vacant lot sat for years.   Since this historic bungalow is very near the river, I have my suspicions about a McMansion in the works.  What concerns me is that it was mentioned that this home isn't as big and nice as some of the homes surrounding it...thus opening the possibility of that being a consideration in the future instead of the preservation of the housing stock in our historic districts.

Mr. Joost said he didn't like historic districts because they told you what you could or couldn't do with your property.  Ummm...Mr. Joost...historic districts aren't the only neighborhoods with covenants and restrictions.  Try doing anything you want with your property in Queens Harbor or Jax Golf and Country Club. That argument doesn't hold up.

If this passes the full council, if Mr. Lamb is allowed to pull down his unwanted small historic home simply because he doesn't want it, then no home in any historic district will be safe.  A precedent will have been set. That, too, was brought up.

It is very important that all the historic districts have a good representation at the full council meeting about this to support RAP's position.  It's too important to all of us.  Springfield needs to turn out in force to support RAP.  And we need to contact San Marco Preservation as well to turn out.

[lindab]

You are so right about the precedent. The city attorney mentioned that demolition of this historic house which is not determined to be unsafe by the Chief of Building Inspections but simply neglected by the landowner over his 40 years of ownership would be a future model that any historic home in Jacksonville could be demolished simply because the landowner doesn't want to maintain it.

[ChriswUfGator]

I only got there at the tail end, as Harden was making his final statements about how "he knew the law" and that the owner had every right to want his family to live in a structure that met modern wind codes.

LMAO!

They gotta be kidding. Like the Lambs would ever be caught dead living in that house. You ought to see their actual houses, on Richmond and Montgomery, that they've had since the 1970's. One's about a $5 million dollar waterfront house, and the other one's about a $2 million waterfront house. Hardin's argument is just an outright lie, and given the large lot size I'm sure the real reason they want the house gone is to subdivide it or otherwise maximize the value of it. Obviously the council members aren't complete idiots. Hardin was really grasping at straws on this one.

[fsu813]

I emailed Mr. Joost & Ms. Holt.


I recommend doing the same: joost@coj.net & holt@coj.net

[second_pancake]

You know what kills me about people like Joost (don't get me wrong, glad he voted with the laws/regulations in place), is they are so against the awful and demanding rules of historic districts, yet they are just fine in their golf-course view gated communities of Queen's Harbour, Glen Kernan, or the like, WTF?  Lol.  Why do folks who live in deed-restricted communities that don't fall under historic designation, so hateful towards them?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, I lived in a neighborhood full of 70's style patio homes that is so restrictive, they actually put a lien on a woman's home, forced her into foreclosure, bought the property at auction and resold it, just because the women flat refused to take down her horizontal siding and replace it with the original vertical siding that all but ruined her home with the water leakage it caused.  I don't know many historic districts that would allow that ridiculousness to occur.

[Kay]

Councilman Joost totally supported not demolishing the house.  He gets it.  He understands that the value of a historic district is in its historic buildings and that once removed you can never get that back.  While he said he doesn't like historic districts, he also said that Riverside Avondale is a historic district voted on by the residents and enacted into law by the Council and there are rules and laws that now govern it.  And because of this the house should not be demolished.  

Councilman Holt on the otherhand, thought it should be demolished because he thought that was the right thing to do.  

[second_pancake]

That's what I'm talking about though...the "dislike" that folks express for historic districts.  While Joost agrees with enforcing the law and agrees with the points folks made about the value of the buildings in maintaining a historic district, he still "does not like" historic districts for the restrictions that they implement regarding what a property owner can and can not do with their property.  Holt and Joost are one in the same in regard to their own personal opinion, the only difference is one at least was willing to uphold and enforce the regulations regardless of his personal feeling while the other had complete disregard.  

I don't think it was the place for him to express his disdain for historic districts, but rather review the facts at hand and simply make a decision.