Solutions for Saving Historic Structures

[avs]

Folks in Savannah started a Foundation with a nationally recognized revolving fund model that looks like a great idea.  I think it is also worth noting that the Foundation is not neighborhood specific - it works with all of their Historic Districts which is great for resource building

http://www.myhsf.org/revolving-fund/

[sheclown]

When I asked a city planner in Richmond about their policy in historic neighborhoods:

the answer is no.  if the house is in imminent danger of coming down on its own the city tears them down.  but only if it is a public safety danger

most of the neighborhoods in richmond are federal historic districts, so you have to get state approval before you tear something down unless it is a public safety issue

[avs]

Springfield and Riverside/Avondale are both National Historic Districts, is this the same as Federal?

[ChriswUfGator]

Yep.

The difference is that COJ's Code Compliance Division has habitually mis-applied and mis-used their statutory authority to determine when a structure constituted a 'Public Safety' hazard, so they could respond to SPAR's pressuring them for demolitions. We never had to deal with a hateful bunch of bitter wannabe-social-climbers like that in Riverside, and so very few properties are even suggested for demolition. And out of the ones which are "Formal Tracked" they won't actually be demolished because COJ knows RAP will come down on it like a ton of bricks.

Literally hundreds and hundreds of protected historic structures have been demolished in Springfield as the result of SPAR pressuring COJ, and Code Compliance then in turn mis-using it's authority to declare a structure a 'Public Safety Hazard' in order to bring about the illegal demolition that SPAR was demanding.

[avs]

So the way around it is to prove what we all who have renovated homes know - many of these homes aren't "unsafe" and therefore cannot be torn down because they are federally protected. 

[ChriswUfGator]

So the way around it is to prove what we all who have renovated homes know - many of these homes aren't "unsafe" and therefore cannot be torn down because they are federally protected.  

Well, unfortunately, the people who are responsible for making that legal determination (COJ's Code Compliance Division) are the very same ones who were in bed with SPAR for years, habitually misusing their authority to slate hundreds upon hundreds of perfectly sound structures for illegal demolition by wrongfully declaring them public safety hazards when they really weren't.

Code Enforcement needs to be called on the carpet for this behavior. They have utterly gutted an entire federally protected historic district by declaring structurally sound (but not always pretty) houses hazards to public safety when in reality they were perfectly sound.

[avs]

What if we had structural engineers come in and counter code enforcement's opinions?

[02roadking]

Might be some good info in here

http://www.nps.gov/history/preservationmonth/preservation.html

[ChriswUfGator]

What if we had structural engineers come in and counter code enforcement's opinions?

That is already a statutory requirement, unfortunately Code Compliance just outright ignores it.

And SPAR was the fox guarding the henhouse, since the same organization entrusted with "Preservation" (that is after all the "P" in "SPAR") was the very same group that had been calling in the bogus Code complaints and pressuring COJ for demolitions in the first place. Not only were they not stopping any of this, they intentionally caused it.

It's a travesty. Moving forward, something has to be done about the fact that Code Compliance continues to wrongly declare structures to be hazards to public safety when they aren't in order to bring about demolitions that shouldn't be occurring. Something should also be done about COJ routinely ignoring the requirement that the property undergo a structural assessment to determine whether it really is unsound or not prior to being demolished.

[iloveionia]

What if we had structural engineers come in and counter code enforcement's opinions?

That is already a statutory requirement, unfortunately Code Compliance just outright ignores it.

And SPAR was the fox guarding the henhouse, since the same organization entrusted with "Preservation" (that is after all the "P" in "SPAR") was the very same group that had been calling in the bogus Code complaints and pressuring COJ for demolitions in the first place. Not only were they not stopping any of this, they intentionally caused it.

It's a travesty. Moving forward, something has to be done about the fact that Code Compliance continues to wrongly declare structures to be hazards to public safety when they aren't in order to bring about demolitions that shouldn't be occurring. Something should also be done about COJ routinely ignoring the requirement that the property undergo a structural assessment to determine whether it really is unsound or not prior to being demolished.

I appreciate the "moving forward" part.  And what was written after definitely will be part of the plan of action. 

[avs]

If there are any structural engineers our there who would be willing to donate some time to look at a few of the most endangered homes, please PM myself, iloveionia or sheclown

[avs]

The city knows demolition is not good.  We just have to reinforce it with them.  This is from the Springfield District Guidelines

Demolition

Demolition is an important issue in Springfield. The main reasons for demolition have been institutional and commercial expansion, particularly by hospitals, and condemnation by the city, principally due to fire damage and deterioration.

Demolition invariably exerts a negative impact on a historic district. Under current zoning, land-use regulations, and market conditions, compatible new construction is often not feasible. Furthermore, eliminating a building from a streetscape is like pulling teeth. Either a conspicuous, void is created, or the replacement, even if well-designed, is usually less well-designed and constructed than the original.

Beyond aesthetics, demolition creates other problems as well. While the problem of vacant and abandoned buildings is serious, vacant land can be worse. For example, many condemned buildings in Springfield have been rehabilitated at reasonable costs. Except for public housing, little new construction is currently taking place because of market conditions and unbuildable lots. As a result, demolition contributes to a poor environment. Many lots are unmaintained and become trash dumps. A nuisance abatement problem results and contributes to the following scenario. Since there is little or no market for many of these lots, particularly ones where land development regulations prohibit new construction, owners have no incentives to maintain them. They must still pay taxes and expend money for mowing and trash removal. Since land is not depreciable there are not even tax advantages for vacant land. Given this scenario, owners frequently abandon their property. The city then must fine owners and clean their property. Nuisance abatement liens accumulate on the property. The city is eventually forced to condemn the property, remove it from the tax rolls, maintain it, and assume the cost and liability of property ownership.

Demolition of significant buildings, outbuildings, and individual features conflicts with Standards 2 and 4. Demolition alters the essential character and integrity of a building and the district in which it is located.

[sheclown]

Perhaps we could ask them to supply an engineer's report for all homes which are currently on the Formal Track -- for them to prove that these houses are a safety risk.  Isn't it far better to prove that something is unsafe than  for us to have to prove to them that it is safe.

Clearly the burden of proof [unsafe structure] is on them.

[avs]

YES!  That is a great idea.  and the burdon of proof is on them and code enforcement are not engineers.  Should we submit a letter with a list of homes and the actual wording/regulation whatever from the Federal designation stating that they can only tear them down if they are "unsafe"

Can you ask your urban planner contact where we would find this information?  I can't find it on the National Register's website, and I can't find a contact either

[sheclown]

AVS, why not contact Joel McEachin's office and ask them?