Solutions for Saving Historic Structures

[avs]

done!

[sheclown]

I don't think we need to prove that the homes are structurally sound.  I think what we need to prove is that they are not a threat to the neighboring houses (no wall is going to crash down on a neighboring house).

This is the main reason,  from a safety point of view, for boarding the houses.  We don't want anyone getting in there and starting a fire.

As I see it.

[vicupstate]

I could be wrong but I don't believe being on the National Register in and of itself, prohibits demolition.  Virginia, being a state steeped in history, probably has a STATE law which provides this protection.  Likewise municipalities can do the same, but the extent to which this is enforced can vary greatly.

Charleston uses it's local historic designation to prohibit demolitions except in cases of extreme, well-documented safety hazard.  Local organizations like the Historic Charleston Foundation, that are independent of the city, act as additional safeguards (including making the city follow it's own rules).  This role  is the one that the Jax Historical Society should play, but from my observation, they neglect.   

Neighborhood groups also play a vital role in both Charleston and Jax (ie RAP).  However, the limited geographical scope of each, leaves some areas well protected (Riverside-Avondale) and others poorly protected (Springfield) and still others not at all protected (Downtown/LaVilla/Brooklyn). 

Demolishing a historic structure in Charleston is about as popular as opening a prison or a landfill in most places.  It rarely happens, because local opinion and political clout is so strong against it.  Until Springfield and DT develop the same, demolitions will continue unabated.     

[ChriswUfGator]

I could be wrong but I don't believe being on the National Register in and of itself, prohibits demolition.  Virginia, being a state steeped in history, probably has a STATE law which provides this protection.  Likewise municipalities can do the same, but the extent to which this is enforced can vary greatly.

Charleston uses it's local historic designation to prohibit demolitions except in cases of extreme, well-documented safety hazard.  Local organizations like the Historic Charleston Foundation, that are independent of the city, act as additional safeguards (including making the city follow it's own rules).  This role  is the one that the Jax Historical Society should play, but from my observation, they neglect.    

Neighborhood groups also play a vital role in both Charleston and Jax (ie RAP).  However, the limited geographical scope of each, leaves some areas well protected (Riverside-Avondale) and others poorly protected (Springfield) and still others not at all protected (Downtown/LaVilla/Brooklyn).

Demolishing a historic structure in Charleston is about as popular as opening a prison or a landfill in most places.  It rarely happens, because local opinion and political clout is so strong against it.  Until Springfield and DT develop the same, demolitions will continue unabated.    

Charleston's preservation laws actually predated any of the federal government's efforts by a solid three decades or more, so they're something of a unique example. I remember going there as a boy in the 1980s when half the city was essentially one big ghetto, but that didn't deter anyone from preservation.

They weren't total idiots like we have been. They understood that if the place was going to come back then it needed to have its historic building stock INTACT, otherwise it would just be a bunch of vacant lots, and nobody would ever care much about those. Our local policies have been an outright disaster, Vic. It's maddening.

Regarding our own current situation, as it sits right now with no changes, COJ should already be doing structural evaluations on historic properties to determine their actual condition before they're demolished just because some random Code Enforcement Officer with zero construction or engineering training declared it to be a hazard to the public safety without even going inside. And judging from their past behavior, Code Compiance believes that overgrown weeds and loose shingles constitue a safety hazard.

They aren't doing any actual determinations of whether the structure is sound or not, and should be made to explain why not. Sending a Code Enforcement Officer with no engineering or construction experience out to take a couple photos doesn't count as a structural evaluation. These people obviously don't know what they're doing in the performance of their job, and they clearly also have no clue what they're doing in the larger sense to the historic neighborhood in which 400 structures have been demolished and many many more are still on the chopping block.

[sheclown]

If the bathroom isn't properly working, it is grounds for demolition in Jax.

This is section 518.111 of the Municipal code, it defines Unsafe Structure, this is what we have to prove they are not. [thanks AVS]

Unsafe building or unsafe structure includes the following buildings and structures:

(a)     Those whose walls or other structural members sag, list, lean or buckle to such an extent that they are in danger of collapse.

(b)     Those with structural members which are overloaded, or which have insufficient strength to be safe for the purpose used.

(c)     Those damaged by fire, wind, deterioration, or other causes to such an extent that they are dangerous to the general health or safety of the occupants or the public.

(d)     Those which are vacant and unguarded and open at doors or windows or which otherwise provide unrestricted access to the interior.

(e)     Those having light, air or sanitation facilities which are inadequate to protect the general health or safety of the occupants.

(f)     Those not having exits or fire protection required by the building code or the fire prevention code.

(g)     Those having any piece, part or attachment which is so insecurely fixed as to be in danger of falling or being dislodged by the elements so that it may injure any person or property.

(h)     Those which are in violation of the minimum housing code, building codes, electrical code or plumbing code of the city.

(i)     Those of unfinished construction for which the building permit has expired.

(j)     Those which constitute a fire or windstorm hazard.

(k)     Those which have become or are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe or unsanitary or which so utterly fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living that they are unfit for human habitation or are likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of those persons living therein.

(l)     The remains, debris, walls, chimney or floors of or left from a building or structure which has partially or completely collapsed, fallen or been torn down.

(m)     Any abandoned swimming pool, excavation or any septic tank which threatens or endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public.

[CS Foltz]

Too bad incompetent non-engineering qualified code enforcement officers do not know the difference! Might be easier to upgrade those bufoons? Obvious to me, IMHO, Code Enforcement is going by something.....just not sure what! What their mom's say?

[ChriswUfGator]

If the bathroom isn't properly working, it is grounds for demolition in Jax.

This is section 518.111 of the Municipal code, it defines Unsafe Structure, this is what we have to prove they are not. [thanks AVS]

Unsafe building or unsafe structure includes the following buildings and structures:

(a)     Those whose walls or other structural members sag, list, lean or buckle to such an extent that they are in danger of collapse.

(b)     Those with structural members which are overloaded, or which have insufficient strength to be safe for the purpose used.

(c)     Those damaged by fire, wind, deterioration, or other causes to such an extent that they are dangerous to the general health or safety of the occupants or the public.

(d)     Those which are vacant and unguarded and open at doors or windows or which otherwise provide unrestricted access to the interior.

(e)     Those having light, air or sanitation facilities which are inadequate to protect the general health or safety of the occupants.

(f)     Those not having exits or fire protection required by the building code or the fire prevention code.

(g)     Those having any piece, part or attachment which is so insecurely fixed as to be in danger of falling or being dislodged by the elements so that it may injure any person or property.

(h)     Those which are in violation of the minimum housing code, building codes, electrical code or plumbing code of the city.

(i)     Those of unfinished construction for which the building permit has expired.

(j)     Those which constitute a fire or windstorm hazard.

(k)     Those which have become or are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe or unsanitary or which so utterly fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living that they are unfit for human habitation or are likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of those persons living therein.

(l)     The remains, debris, walls, chimney or floors of or left from a building or structure which has partially or completely collapsed, fallen or been torn down.

(m)     Any abandoned swimming pool, excavation or any septic tank which threatens or endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public.

The problem Sheclown is that COJ routinely uses this on vacant properties, where there are no inhabitants to protect from a non-working bathroom.

[sheclown]

Yes, I know!

Good thing no one came into my house on 7th Street when I first moved in.  Yikes.  No kitchen.  Dishes done in the front yard with a hose for awhile. 

This is what urban pioneers do. 

[Timkin]

Okay, thread revival police.... I ll accept a citation for this one..

When PS#4 was under a demolition request , I contacted the FLORIDA Trust , who in turn, trying to help my plea, contacted the National Trust.  From what I understood, even if a building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, if it is in a condemned and unsafe status, it CAN be brought down, if an owner can show reasonable cause that repairing the building is cost-prohibitive and that any and every avenue has been exhausted to try to save the structure. I do not think that was the case with PS#4, however, that  information, came from , I believe I recall her name was Karen Nickless who was with Florida Trust, at the time.  Both Florida Trust and the National trust quickly responded on the matter.  As we all know now, the developer backed away from the approach of demolition even though LUZ approved it with condition. It was deferred by full council for over a year and finally kicked out, referring it back to HPC, who denied the request to begin with.

With regard to Municipal Code, that to me, is a double-edge sword.  I think it has a time and a place , but on a vacant building that is NOT occupied , poses little if any threat of collapsing on someone or adjacent properties and is much more cost-effective to "Mothball" vs demolish , that seems to be the most reasonable avenue..But then there is the issue of an owner who refuses to do anything to comply, or even respond. Try getting the current owner of PS#4 on the phone. Good luck to you.

I can only hope as a new administration comes in , depending on who that Administration turns out to be, that major changes will be made to municipal code that will protect these properties..  You know , if we lost one or two buildings here and there, that would be one thing.. We all know that has not been the case, and the majority would see what remains ,spared regardless of the area of Jacksonville it is in.   I know the Mothballing Legislation has been introduced, and that is a wonderful first step .. but it almost seems that the minds of Municipal code have little ,if any sympathy for the significant older homes and buildings of our city, and it appears they are chomping at the bit, so to speak to get these buildings gone. On one hand they are doing their job. On the other , it is at the cost of us continually , and very rapidly, I might add, losing our Historic homes and other structures.

It would be wonderful if a Local Historic Preservation Trust could be implemented that assists owners of historic structures, to rehabilitate these beauties ..We need this fabric...it is essential to the betterment of our city and community IMO.

[strider]

The entire system was devised to tear houses down.  Code Enforcement's "formal track" was nothing but a smoke screen to help the powers that be get rid of the old historic houses.  Sounds crazy, and I agree; I couldn't figure out why for a long time, but I think I finally have the answer.

We talked with a realtor recently about putting a couple of houses on the market.  What was interesting was the new construction is worth selling but the historic house is not.  It should not be this way.  Historically speaking, a stable Historic District has a small percentage of new construction infill that is worth less and is less desirable than the historic houses.  Why is Springfield the opposite?  Is it just the sign of the times?  Is it the economic issue the world is facing?  Is it a compromise between the suburban mind set many were brought up with and the growing benefits to urban living?  I think it is certainly affected by all of the above, but it has also been instrumented by various factions. 

Think about SRG and what they did with not only realtors but the local organizations.  They put their people into positions to make decisions about the old houses.  And when those decisions were made, it was against the old house.  As many have said, SRG didn’t need more lots, but they still promoted the demolition of old houses for safety and social reasons.  SRG also promoted the values of empty lots.  They drove those values up as high as possible, often with internal sales.  This also made the old historic house needing restoration worth less as SRG would pay more for that empty lot than one with a historic house on it.  Even the new in-fill values were inflated with internal sales to price the new construction well above the average selling price of even a well done and completed restoration.

You can substitute any developer for SRG, SRG is simply the local developer that was the most visible.  Even before there was an SRG, the law makers were supporting the concept that new was worth more than the old  Even the overlay and the historic guidelines make it easier and cheaper for a new house to be built than to restore that old one.  The Overlay also uses many suburban zoning rules to make the urban settings more like a suburb than the urban core it is.

SPAR bought into this entire scenario and so did many of the city leaders as well as many Springfield residents.   It seemed like the best thing was to follow that money and the money was telling everyone the old historic houses were worthless and the new was the way to go.  When you look back at the minutes of various meetings, from the HPC to the City Council, every decision was made to “suburbanize” Springfield and to make it better for the clientele the developers wanted.  That is why there are pages of minutes over a fence or a window and  a half a paragraph over the demolition of an historic house.  Everyone was successfully being convinced that the old house was worthless, it was only that empty lot or new infill that was worth anything.

Even today, realtors are still promoting that concept.  Because one or two house successfully sold in this bad market and the buyers  wanted new only, that seems like the mentality that is being used to promote Springfield.  I know it will be said that the realtors are not creating this reality, it just is.  In a way, that is very true.  It took years of manipulating the market, of manipulating the various organizations, of manipulating the realtors and the city leaders to get the market to this point. And, of course, the drastic issues with the economy and the housing market certainly helped reinforce some of those ideals. 

Let’s face it.  The Realtors buy into it because they need to sell houses to make a living.  Code Enforcement buys into it because it fits their mantra of safety (social reasons) and that if they back down now and start doing the right thing, it makes everything done before admittedly wrong.  The same with the local organizations and the HPC.  Agree whole heartedly that all the old houses are worth saving and they are admitting they were wrong or at the very least, they were hoodwinked. 

We are making progress, but it is slow progress.   It is safe for new HPC members, for instance, to make a stand for the old houses, but  to correct the wrongs puts the city at risk for legal action against them so the old wrong decisions will stand.  Unless we fight and fight hard.  It took years to get here and it will take years to get back. You can’t just go to one HPC meeting and cry about the loss of a historic house.  You must stand up many times, even when it is not popular, and scream out how wrong it is.  To do less insures failure.

We have seen several houses go since this “moratorium” was agreed upon.  The Paterson Apartments will simply be just one more if we let it. 

What will it take to change all this?  Money, the same thing that got us here.  The formal track, for instance, was used to help convince the HPC to approve house after house for demolition.  And many, including the coming Paterson Apartments, have been lost to this “formal track’.  Except per Code Enforcement, there is no “formal track“.  So, it seems to me that every single house approved for demolition on the “formal track” was done so illegally.  Every single house taken under the formal track was done so illegally.  Code Enforcement, or at least a few of it’s employees, committed fraud on behalf of the city to get these historic houses approved for demolition.  The city needs to be taken to task over this non-existent but often used and powerful “formal tack”. That is the way to stop the demolitions.  Fear of loss of money.  Money.  What got us here to start with, can be used to save us as well.

[thelakelander]

Strider, if you could rewrite section 518.111 of the Municipal code, what would you change?

[Ocklawaha]

If the bathroom isn't properly working, it is grounds for demolition in Jax.

This is section 518.111 of the Municipal code, it defines Unsafe Structure, this is what we have to prove they are not. [thanks AVS]

Unsafe building or unsafe structure includes the following buildings and structures:

(a)     Those whose walls or other structural members sag, list, lean or buckle to such an extent that they are in danger of collapse.

(b)     Those with structural members which are overloaded, or which have insufficient strength to be safe for the purpose used.

(c)     Those damaged by fire, wind, deterioration, or other causes to such an extent that they are dangerous to the general health or safety of the occupants or the public.

(d)     Those which are vacant and unguarded and open at doors or windows or which otherwise provide unrestricted access to the interior.

(e)     Those having light, air or sanitation facilities which are inadequate to protect the general health or safety of the occupants.

(f)     Those not having exits or fire protection required by the building code or the fire prevention code.

(g)     Those having any piece, part or attachment which is so insecurely fixed as to be in danger of falling or being dislodged by the elements so that it may injure any person or property.

(h)     Those which are in violation of the minimum housing code, building codes, electrical code or plumbing code of the city.

(i)     Those of unfinished construction for which the building permit has expired.

(j)     Those which constitute a fire or windstorm hazard.

(k)     Those which have become or are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe or unsanitary or which so utterly fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living that they are unfit for human habitation or are likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of those persons living therein.

(l)     The remains, debris, walls, chimney or floors of or left from a building or structure which has partially or completely collapsed, fallen or been torn down.

(m)     Any abandoned swimming pool, excavation or any septic tank which threatens or endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public.

The problem Sheclown is that COJ routinely uses this on vacant properties, where there are no inhabitants to protect from a non-working bathroom.

Damn boys and girls, half the stuff on that list applies to my house at the WGV... Which gives me a great and evil idea! Now where's that Spanish wife and the matches??? "LUUUUUUUUUCY" WANNA MOVE TO SAN MARCO? ORTEGA? AVONDALE? ¿Por favor?

OCKLAWAHA

[Kiva]

The entire system was devised to tear houses down.  Code Enforcement's "formal track" was nothing but a smoke screen to help the powers that be get rid of the old historic houses.  Sounds crazy, and I agree; I couldn't figure out why for a long time, but I think I finally have the answer.

Think about SRG and what they did with not only realtors but the local organizations.  They put their people into positions to make decisions about the old houses.  And when those decisions were made, it was against the old house.  As many have said, SRG didn’t need more lots, but they still promoted the demolition of old houses for safety and social reasons.  SRG also promoted the values of empty lots.  They drove those values up as high as possible, often with internal sal. 

Everyone was successfully being convinced that the old house was worthless, it was only that empty lot or new infill that was worth anything. Code Enforcement buys into it because it fits their mantra of safety (social reasons) and that if they back down now and start doing the right thing, it makes everything done before admittedly wrong. 

It took years to get here and it will take years to get back. You can’t just go to one HPC meeting and cry about the loss of a historic house.  You must stand up many times, even when it is not popular, and scream out how wrong it is.  To do less insures failure.

We have seen several houses go since this “moratorium” was agreed upon.  The Paterson Apartments will simply be just one more if we let it. 

What will it take to change all this?  Money, the same thing that got us here.  The formal track, for instance, was used to help convince the HPC to approve house after house for demolition.  And many, including the coming Paterson Apartments, have been lost to this “formal track’.  Except per Code Enforcement, there is no “formal track“.  So, it seems to me that every single house approved for demolition on the “formal track” was done so illegally.  Every single house taken under the formal track was done so illegally.  Code Enforcement, or at least a few of it’s employees, committed fraud on behalf of the city to get these historic houses approved for demolition.  The city needs to be taken to task over this non-existent but often used and powerful “formal tack”. That is the way to stop the demolitions.  Fear of loss of money.  Money.  What got us here to start with, can be used to save us as well.

As a Springfield resident I'm taken aback at the number of older homes that are demolished for the flimsiest of reasons. What is the point of having a historic district if it is so easy to tear down old homes? It seems that the city council is just not hearing what residents are saying.

[Timkin]

Seems rewriting the rules for code enforcement are priority.  Having code enforcement people that have half a clue on what is truly unsafe would be a plus.  The Patterson Structure does not meet that criteria , IMO, enough.  It should be mothballed.

[strider]

Strider, if you could rewrite section 518.111 of the Municipal code, what would you change?

The issue is not really with 518.111 - definitions, it is really with 518.105 which gives the Chief the right to interpret and make new rules. I would guess this is where the "formal track" came from.  The one that is used but does to exist and basically gives the future of an historic house away to people who do not care about anything but clearing the cases.

It is with 518.121 which defines the employees, or rather does not define the employees responsible and gives no criteria for the training nor qualifications of those employees, including, as far as I can see, the Chief, unless of course that is covered somewhere else in the municipal code. Even then, if it is spelled out somewhere, it does not seem like it is followed very much, if at all. Real world experience has shown that those making the determinations of the conditions of these houses have no qualifications to do so. Just read the HPC minutes and that becomes very evident.

Another issue is with 518.124 - they are supposed to be keeping records of the business they conduct, but who had to make that list of houses on the formal track? It wasn't the city employees who put those the houses on that formal track.

It seems that for the most part, it isn't the code itself that is so bad, it is the employees of the city that run the department. They are the ones who decide what to enforce and how far to take it.  They are the ones who "create" things like the "formal track" that scams the HPC into approving historic houses for demolitions.  They are the ones that make it known that employees will be graded on clearing cases, including tearing down houses to clear those cases. They are the ones who interpret their jobs as creators of empty lots.

To be honest, there are some good and qualified employees within code enforcement department that do try to do their jobs properly.  However, if management says do it their way, they must comply.  It ultimately falls back to the Chief and what polices he or she sets. For Springfield, it seems to be tear 'em down.