"Emergency Demolition"

[mtraininjax]

Most homeowners would be reluctant to allow me to come in with or without ins. "Why bother?" would be the mindset. Hell... they didn't care enough about the structure/landfill issue enough to preserve a sound structure to begin with.

Good for them, I would not let you on my properties without seeing the insurance and checking to make sure it was current or to see if you had any pending litigation in the local courts and I would check your company with the State and Better Business Bureau. But then again, I trust, but verify.

[ChriswUfGator]

My point to this.. where there is a will there is a way.

Until SPAR has the same clout in the city that RAP does, if a home is in Springfield, they are considered an endangered species. If this home was in SPAR district, why are there not people rushing to save it, as there would be in RAP's district? What is the perception of homes in SPAR versus RAP?

The reason Springfield, as a neighborhood, is endangered is because SPAR had too much clout.

[Debbie Thompson]

I disagree a bit Chris.  SPAR needed clout.  What they lost was their mission, which should have been historic preservation.  They got too much into "revitalization."  In an historic district, if you preserve the homes and restore them, the revitalization will come along automatically.  Once you stop preservation efforts, and instead try to force "revitalization" at the expense of preservation, the neighborhood homes suffer and the revitalization you thought you were chasing doesn't occur, because there are too many vacant lots and neglected homes due to lost focus.

My two cents.  Feel free to disagree.

[strider]

It wasn't so much the loss of direction as much as it was greed. It was also the influx of a group that had an idea of how to market their product and the old houses and most of the existing residents stood in their way.

Many of the individuals attracted by that marketing also felt the existing residents and old houses were an issue.  Hey, even I will agree that on occasion, they were at least partially right.  But the failure to see Springfield for what it really is has always been the issue and the point that holds us back. Even zoning laws seem more geared towards making this urban area more like the suburbs than what it really is. It is how or why we have lost 25% of the historic houses since the area was made an historic district.

[ChriswUfGator]

I disagree a bit Chris.  SPAR needed clout.  What they lost was their mission, which should have been historic preservation.  They got too much into "revitalization."  In an historic district, if you preserve the homes and restore them, the revitalization will come along automatically.  Once you stop preservation efforts, and instead try to force "revitalization" at the expense of preservation, the neighborhood homes suffer and the revitalization you thought you were chasing doesn't occur, because there are too many vacant lots and neglected homes due to lost focus.

My two cents.  Feel free to disagree.

I do disagree, having been in Springfield since before SPAR's trip down the rabbit hole.

SPAR had plenty of clout, and misused all of it, literally and figuratively destroying the place in the process.