1325 Laura -- demolition hearing at HPC

[BigGuy219]

you're right.. that is a mystery to many of us.. and it isnt just houses.. a beautiful 1917  School Building in Brooklyn is rotting down.  It was bought in 1980 and was pretty intact.. its crumbling

Well, if you solve the mystery, I predict you solve the problem.

A doctor from another part of town buys up 5 properties.

Strips them. Neglects them. Then, one at a time, starts pettitioning to have demolished?

Sounds fishy as hell. Something is up. Where's Ken Amaro? He's on your side.

[Timkin]

the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

[BigGuy219]

the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

You know where this doctor works. Why don't you get a video camera. Show up at his office. Wait for him to head to his car and them bum rush him with the camera and ask him questions about what's going on what he's doing?

[sheclown]

Big Guy.  The doctor more than likely thought, like many investors, he could easily make a killing on these homes.  He did not know what he was doing which is why he stripped the homes of trim and plaster and removed the chimneys.  Contractors who know nothing about historic preservation give terrible advice and these investors follow it.

In 2007 changes in the ordinance code gave Code Enforcement more responsibility to place safety above preservation so they started to fine these investors for having unsafe structures.  These rolling fines (some as much as $250 per day) made holding on to these properties an unwise business decision.  The only alternative is to demolish to remove the fines.

Even if the homes don't get rolling fines,  they still come up before the special master and gets fines and citations.

Add to this the fact that many folks who moved into Springfield in the mid to late 2000s were promised miraculous revitalization in Springfield -- the poor were to be driven out, the blight was going to be bulldozed.  There was a plan in place endorsed by the neighborhood preservation association, bought and paid for by the developer.  

So now, when people are sitting upside down in their new homes, in the middle of a neighborhod still struggling with the delicate balance of blight and historic preservation, we are in trouble.

But this story has a heart-warming turn.  As the homes are being demolished (an average of 1 and a half a month), even those newly planted in the neighborhood are saying "wait a minute! this isn't what I thought."  And they have become the most vocal on preservation.  They are understanding the layout of the land and working hard to make sure the cold-hearted revitalization doesn't resemble genocide.

[sheclown]

However, the big wheels of city government bought into the developer's plan (led by the executive director of SPAR), and gave its blessing on the wholesale demolition of dozens of homes in 2008, 2009, and early 2010.  

Apparently there is no stopping this decision even though the neighborhood organization has changed its stance (with its new Ed) and the neighborhood's positiion on preservation has taken a 180 turn.  

New preservation group is formed (ah hem...Preservation SOS)

We beg, we plead, we cry...

[sheclown]

Arriving on the scene, like a white knight, is Bill Killingsworth, who advocates for mothballing legislation, a reasonable middle ground between restoration (impossible to finance in this economy) and demolition.  He set the historic planners on a task of writing legislation based on other communities to make a reasonable "time out" while still addressing the neighborhood blight.

Lisa Sheppard, a historic planner, and Jason Teal with the city's general counsel's office, worked very hard for months shaping a great draft for the council's approval.  It is my understanding that as soon as code enforcement signs off on it, it will take the journey to become law.

Without this legislation, I am afraid most condemned properties in Jacksonville will end up being demolished.  With our housing surplus and the difficulty in getting financing (although I understand 203k loans are out there and Springfield Chicken could speak on this) if we cannot protect these houses until their new owners find them, we will lose them.

[sheclown]

We need to change the way we think about these neglected homes.  They are not our biggest blight, they are our city's undervalued asset.  With a little imagination, some elbow grease, a few bucks, these jewels can help to solve downtown's vacancy problems, unemployment in the core, and increase the city's tax base.

[sheclown]

the owner of the School I am speaking of , owns some properties in Springfield.. same scenario. Buys them does nothing to them ,  some of them are slated for demo..

IMO  there is an underlying cause that involves alot of people.. none of it makes sense

You know where this doctor works. Why don't you get a video camera. Show up at his office. Wait for him to head to his car and them bum rush him with the camera and ask him questions about what's going on what he's doing?

Actually Big Guy, the Historic Planning Commission is requesting his presence at the next meeting.  I believe they will be asking him those very questions.

[Bativac]

BG  we live in a city where to many good people , Historic preservation is important, but to some, particularly in  City Management , the regard for history is nix.  You would not believe how many beautiful structures have ended up a pile of rubble..   Springfield has lost significant amounts of historic homes and buildings. 

It is my hope that as we embark on a new administration, combined efforts will help immensely to curtail this .. we have lost far too much already, and we really cannot afford to lose our historic fabric..  In Springfield, the efforts of the residents , and the SOS (Save our Springfield) effort, is fighting to keep these places .

Timkin. I think I understand the city's role in approving the demolition of the structures from what I've read here.

But what has me lost is, why would this doctor buy five houses, neglect them, and then push to have them bulldozed? What's his motive? What is he getting out of it?

I've wondered this myself. Is he able to make money by selling the vacant land? Did he hope to "flip" these homes in the beginning and now finds that he cannot sell them as is but might be able to minimize his losses (and perhaps applicable fines, taxes, etc) by having the homes bulldozed?

[sheclown]

Buckethead.  What are you and the Mrs waiting for?  Just do it.  This is an absolute great time to buy in Springfield. 

As for 1325 Laura Street.  The Doctor purchased 5 "Madge" homes way back when for that $225,000 lump sum.  He gutted completely (though not necessary) the large yellow house on the corner and renovated it.  It's nice, though nothing original, and currently listed at over 1/2 a million.  No lie. 

Recent vacant lot sales have fetched as low as $8k.  This home does not sit on a large lot, and I do not believe there is a driveway.  Fair to say max $12 - $15k for a vacant lot this size.

Our problem is a structural engineer can come out and write a report (after inspection of course,) and say that the house is unstable.  That it is a "danger."  That it is "structurally unsound."  The owner wants this house torn down, this evident by his complete disregard for his responsibility for the homes he's purchased.  I've tried to contact him to no avail.  There is a neighbor who also wants the house torn down.  MCCD is only concerned for safety, not history.  HPC doesn't seem to have teeth, and certainly when it comes to safety and "eminent danger," the house it out of their hands.  HPC can persue "Demolition by Neglect" which guarantees a minimum $10k fine or possibly rebuilding the home.  But the lien attaches to the house, not the owner.  Quite simply there is no consequence for the owner, just the house, and in my opinion, the neighborhood. 

How can someone, anyone, buy in a Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood and champion demolition.  It is beyond my scope of understanding.

And as for the house falling down on someone or something or itself? Let us remember Chicken Little.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

[Debbie Thompson]

In reading page 9 of this thread, to me, it sounds like the implication is that if MCCD cites a house as an unsafe structure that it must be dangerous. I know sheclown didn't mean to leave that impression, but that's how I'm reading some of this, so I wanted to chime in.

The truth is, homes have been placed on the formal track for demolition simply because of a little loose roofing, or because they have "been in the system" for a long time.  Not because they are in danger of falling down.  Even houses with foundation issues can be repaired...jacked up and stabilzed.  Many of them have already been.  That's the beauty of the type of construction they have.

In the case of this house, the owner is asking to demolish it, with the "stated intent" (now) of rehabbing the other two.  It isn't the first time he's done this.  When the doctor bought the five houses, people lived in them. They needed some restoration work, certainly, but they were inhabited.

He was able to obtain permission to demolish one of them (the "worst one") by a stated intent to rehab the others.  Not sure of the timeline, before or after the first demo request, but he rehabbed one, just one, of the five. On that one, he did unnecessary work at additional cost to himself, and then put the corner house on the market at $725,000, where it has sat...for years...because it was overpriced  It is currently priced at over $650,000, and still sitting there...still overpriced for the market...and WAY overpriced for the current market.  

After removing the windows and chimnney of 1325 Laura, and the historical integrity by removing the trim, etc, this house is still standing straight, and not sagging.  His lawyer even blamed former owners for the houses' issues.  As if removing as much of the structure as the doctor has would not have any affect.

Does it need help?  Definitely.    A Springfield couple I know tried to obtain one of these house prior to being outbid by this investor.  They told me these houses were the best of the fixer-uppers they had seen.  All the walls in 1325 were intact, the fireplace as there, and all the windows were in place.  Thanks to the doctor, it will be harder to rehab.  But it isn't in danger of falling down.

Why does he want to demolish it?  I can't say.  His lawyer said at the April HPC meeting that he has a "vision" and his lawyer brought a rendering of new houses to the April HPC meeting.  I was late due to my schedule, so I don't know if the row of houses on the rendering was all new, or if the doctor's "vision" included only 2 new houses...one on the vacant lot of the home he already destroyed and one on the vacant lot he wants to make by destryong this one.  But this I can say...where is his "stated intent" of rehabbing the remaining houses.  There are two additional houses sitting there now.  They have been sitting there for years.  If he has a "stated intent" of rehabbing them, why hasn't he started? 

In a National Trust Historic District, the fact is that he has already demolished one historic home, and is requesting to demolish another historic home.  That is not MY "vision" for a historic district, nor the "vision" of the National Trust.

[sheclown]

Good point, Debbie.  Thanks for the clarification.

The changes in 2007 put "safety" before "preservation" meaning that if an old house has any appearance of being unsafe (including not being up to current codes in some cases -- this has been cited as reason for instability from some structural engineers -- shoot new houses should be so well-built) Code has much more power to demolish and in fact is charged with this duty.

[iloveionia]

I am told by a long-standing Laura Street resident who toured 1325 Laura in 2001 that is was condemned in 2001. The initial complaints were citizen made, and it appears as though there may have been a small fire that prompted MCCD to make an interior investigation.  Regardless, Code gained access to the inside.  Here are the initial complaints, appears to be prior to 5/2002 these were found by code (this is a cut/paste and there are errors in spelling et. al that are codes, not mine):

1.  Bedroom 1 Repair Wall has holes and/or cracks, or is
deteriorated, damaged, or otherwise
unsound.
2.  Entire Repair Window(s) required for ventilation
cannot be easily opened and/or closed.
3.  Bathroom 1 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
4.  Bedroom 2 Clean Floor is dirty or is in otherwise
insanitary condition.
5.  Bedroom 3 Clean Floor is dirty or is in otherwise
insanitary condition.
6.   Structure is in violation of the Property
Safety and Maintenance Code, Chapter
518, PART 3
7.  Structure is boarded up, but is still in
violation of building or other codes.
8.   Structure constitutes a fire/windstorm
hazard due to deterioration/damage &
the health/safety of occupants or the
public.
9.   Structure is unfit for human habitation
and poses a threat to the health and
safety of the occupants.
10.  Bathroom 1 Repair Showerhead is missing or is in need of
repair.
11.  Bathroom 2 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
12.  Bathroom 3 Repair Lavatory sink and/or faucet is
deteriorated, damaged, or leaking.
13.  Rear Repair Exterior door hardware is in poor
working condition, is the improper type,
and/or is missing.
14.  Entire Repair Paint or other surface protection is
deteriorated.
15.  Front Repair Protective railings or handrails are
deteriorated or damaged.
16.  Right Side Correct Structure constitutes a fire/windstorm
hazard due to deterioration/damage &
the health/safety of occupants or the
public.
17.  Entire Provide Dwelling or unit not provided with
electric service.

There are a few other items, but you get the idea. Some of this is asinine.

[iloveionia]

Look at the initial violations in 5/2002 that caused it condemnation.  Sounds to me like a case of poor property management,  i.e. a "slumlord." The Good Doctor purchased a home that was cosmetically repairable, but he did nothing, well, scratch that.  He gutted the home, ripped out the chimney and then allowed the elements to get at the home to cause it's rapid deterioationand blight on the neighborhood.

Regardless, the house is not going to fall.  It is not in eminent danger of collapse on itself or passerbys or a neighboring house.  Time to get this old girl restored.  I can not accept the notion of Henny Penny's cries of "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."  Rather I suscribe to the modern interpretation of the Brother's Grimm's written version of The Frog Prince.  "Kiss a frog and get a prince."  Springfield has kissed a lot of frogs and there is plenty more puckering that can and should and WILL be done. 

[sheclown]

Deferred again.

This time there wasn't a quorum to vote on it as one of the commissioners had been hired by the doctor to work on the Laura Street project and had to excuse himself from the voting.