1626 Ionia: It's Coming Down, maybe, maybe not.

[Timkin]

Well... what about this plan (for starters)

Just as the project done on Miss Maggie's  home, which can I mention was beyond an outpouring of love and kindness...

Could a group come into places , such as this one, and board them, clean them , do to them whatever it is the owners will not (after all , it benefits the owner and the building)  to bring it into some resemblence of compliance, or at least enough work to take it off of the scope of dangerous living conditions?  I mean its the same theory, only it is in this instance to keep a building which most favor staying , in Place.    If this makes any sense at all. I presume if demolition is done , the city does it and presents the owner with the bill?  so I would think this a less-costly solution in the interim, as opposed to getting rid altogether of beautiful homes such as this one.


 Ive sort of been trying to do the same thing on a much larger scale to another property.  But in the area that property is in , the entire building could be secured one evening and the next morning , at least a half dozen openings ,compromised.   Seems maybe this isnt such an issue in the Springfield neighborhood.. or maybe it is... I do not live there so I would not know.

[sheclown]

Timkin, we are suggesting "mothballing" which does exactly what you talk about in your post.  

When all means of finding a productive use for a historic building have been exhausted or when funds are not currently available to put a deteriorating structure into a useable condition, it may be necessary to close up the building temporarily to protect it from the weather as well as to secure it from vandalism. This process, known as mothballing, can be a necessary and effective means of protecting the building while planning the property's future, or raising money for a preservation, rehabilitation or restoration project. If a vacant property has been declared unsafe by building officials, stabilization and mothballing may be the only way to protect it from demolition.

more...http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief31.htm

The city needs to be reassured that the property will not be a public safety hazard nor will it be a public nuisance.  We need to find a way to "keep" our condemned properties until a new owner takes possession.

The city used to board up the properties.  We'd love to see that happen again.  

The point that Preservation SOS is trying to make is that all homes need to be saved and that we will do our part to save them.

Good luck on your project.
 

[Timkin]

Thank you so much.  I do not know who your contact with the City is, or if they would even consider going along with the "mothballing" plan... but I certainly think it is at least a temporary solution to a temporary problem.

As to my project.. it is a bit of a horse of a different color...not that there is not willing participants..
my project has a particular element of society that views it as theirs..so the vandalism and graffitti are persistent. I think some of it is even personal ,because they see someone attempting to improve the building, and they do even more to destruct it.  For example.. I sprayed over the columns in white to cover grafitti... TWO DAYS LATER the graffiti was ALL OVER IT. and all over the portico.   


I know there must be a long term solution to both of these scenarios:  Your beautiful Springfield homes , and not "MY"  but  my project,, PS#4 .  While it seems there is a fairly large support group to seeing it saved, it FEELS like there is an even larger group who does not favor it. 

If I can help in any way on your mothballing project, please let me know.  and thank you for your kind words.  It is nice when someone appreciates true effort.  In the extensive show of pictures , I have seen NOT ONE house in the Springfield neighborhood , that, were it my call,would they be demolished.   Lakelander  Posted a picture of a building , now revitilized and TRULY BEAUTIFUL , that was literally an eyesore AND falling down..   Neither the Springfield homes nor the School house come CLOSE to the condition that building was in , prior to its restoration.

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors as well.  My offer stands.  I care about all of Jacksonville...not just the School.  IMO if it is historic , it deserves recognition and to be spared , regardless of the cost to spare it , or its present state.

[mySpringfield]

The city needs to pass legislation that allows them to take these properties and give them to preservations groups(trusts, etc) like RADO and Preservation SOS who will mothball them properly.  Otherwise our efforts will only enable these negligent landowners and the problem will quickly outstrip, if it hasn't already, our resources to provide this form of welfare to them.

[Timkin]

su

The city needs to pass legislation that allows them to take these properties and give them to preservations groups(trusts, etc) like RADO and Preservation SOS who will mothball them properly.  Otherwise our efforts will only enable these negligent landowners and the problem will quickly outstrip, if it hasn't already, our resources to provide this form of welfare to them.

good points.. a reasonable idea as well.. If the groups have the funding to do the mothballing, or taking it even further, the funding to renovate.  I like the idea alot.

[sheclown]

Otherwise our efforts will only enable these negligent landowners and the problem will quickly outstrip, if it hasn't already, our resources to provide this form of welfare to them.

Principles before personalities.

This is not about the property owners, this is about the property.

It would be great to have a landbank for these properties; however, should that not occur, mothballing is still an option for the neighborhood.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, if we determine that the homeowners are not worthy of our help because the houses always are.

[Timkin]

Otherwise our efforts will only enable these negligent landowners and the problem will quickly outstrip, if it hasn't already, our resources to provide this form of welfare to them.

Principles before personalities.

This is not about the property owners, this is about the property.

It would be great to have a landbank for these properties; however, should that not occur, mothballing is still an option for the neighborhood.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, if we determine that the homeowners are not worthy of our help because the houses always are.

Agree.. but is it always that the owner is negligent?  In other words can it also be that they simply cannot afford the upkeep /property taxes/ Mortgage payment ? 

[sheclown]

I agree Timkin.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. 

If the owner doesn't take care of it, the neighborhood has to, or it will lose it.  Fair, not fair, it doesn't matter in the big picture.

[Timkin]

True. Whatever the case is, the building should not be removed.. Certainly not ones like the ones we fight for.

On a similar but non-Springfield Topic...supposedly the Ambassador Hotel downtown is beyond hope.. Id love to know who concluded that and why.

Back on to topic.. In the end, if it means the owner loses the building or the building gets demolished (at our expense) Id choose the lesser of the two evils and save the buildings.

[iloveionia]

We have to properly protect our homes in need in the interium. A properly boarded, secured, monitored home can last while we work to find a proper owner or get the owner to restore.
WE = springfield homeowners/friends, preservation SOS, jax city

[mySpringfield]

Principles before personalities.

This is not about the property owners, this is about the property.

It would be great to have a landbank for these properties; however, should that not occur, mothballing is still an option for the neighborhood.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, if we determine that the homeowners are not worthy of our help because the houses always are.

It's actually about policy.

It's not relevant whether the property is endangered because of willful neglect or the owner is simply unable to take care of it.  The city needs to take them away or this plaque will continue to grow on our urban core as more structures are placed in line for the wrecking ball.

I can't stomach to take care of the duplex behind my house that is heavily overgrown with kudzu vine and presents a fire hazard for my block, is delinquent in taxes and has large liens especially when the owner is a board member on our preservation board (and has other properties in similar condition).  The city needs to take it!

Without policy change mothballing will win a few battles(save a few structures) but we'll lose the war on preservation.

[Timkin]

We have been losing the battle for YEARS , literally on preservation.. Select few people handpicked what has been saved, and for reasons best known to themselves, razed so much that never should have been.

I understand it is policy..  The underlying problem is the people who  MAKE this , policy..  "Policy" needs a major overhaul and a complete different perspective... Otherwise it will be same ole same ole as it has been for decades.

[sheclown]

Principles before personalities.

This is not about the property owners, this is about the property.

It would be great to have a landbank for these properties; however, should that not occur, mothballing is still an option for the neighborhood.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, if we determine that the homeowners are not worthy of our help because the houses always are.

It's actually about policy.

It's not relevant whether the property is endangered because of willful neglect or the owner is simply unable to take care of it.  The city needs to take them away or this plaque will continue to grow on our urban core as more structures are placed in line for the wrecking ball.

I can't stomach to take care of the duplex behind my house that is heavily overgrown with kudzu vine and presents a fire hazard for my block, is delinquent in taxes and has large liens especially when the owner is a board member on our preservation board (and has other properties in similar condition).  The city needs to take it!

Without policy change mothballing will win a few battles(save a few structures) but we'll lose the war on preservation.

Which preservation board?  SOS, SPAR, HPC?

...looked it up.  That would be a SPAR board member.

[sheclown]

@myspringfield:  I hear you.  

We can ask to have a policy change on condemned properties and work toward that goal.  In the meantime, we need to swallow our feelings on this and save the homes, IMHO.

Need inspiration?  go here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7MiG2fe8lE&feature=channel

[uptowngirl]

Principles before personalities.

This is not about the property owners, this is about the property.

It would be great to have a landbank for these properties; however, should that not occur, mothballing is still an option for the neighborhood.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, if we determine that the homeowners are not worthy of our help because the houses always are.

It's actually about policy.

It's not relevant whether the property is endangered because of willful neglect or the owner is simply unable to take care of it.  The city needs to take them away or this plaque will continue to grow on our urban core as more structures are placed in line for the wrecking ball.

I can't stomach to take care of the duplex behind my house that is heavily overgrown with kudzu vine and presents a fire hazard for my block, is delinquent in taxes and has large liens especially when the owner is a board member on our preservation board (and has other properties in similar condition).  The city needs to take it!

Without policy change mothballing will win a few battles(save a few structures) but we'll lose the war on preservation.

Which preservation board?  SOS, SPAR, HPC?

...looked it up.  That would be a SPAR board member.

So we have a SPAR board member that is currently in process of demolition by neglect? This is why we have been saying SPAR needs to go- the whole board and start over. That should be enough to kick them off right there!