Patterson Apartments: They're Coming Down

[ChriswUfGator]

COJ isn't adhering to this 'moratorium' it seems just as many are coming down after as before.

[Timkin]

I am frankly, not surprised at all. just saddened.  This seems to be the trend and the shape  of more to come down.  In this regard, Jacksonville seems doomed.

[sheclown]

The system is terribly broken. 

The mere fact that we can't find out how many homes are actually on the formal track speaks volumns, IMHO. It keeps us running around like Chicken Little only this particular sky truly is falling.

Something really stinks and the neighborhood is getting royally screwed.

[iloveionia]

What formal track?  There is no such thing.  (this from MCCD.)
There is no list.  I've asked a zillion times. 
There are two lists: unsafe structures list, and (forget actual name) but the list of homes that have violations, but are not condemned (yet.)

[strider]

What formal track?  There is no such thing.  (this from MCCD.)
There is no list.  I've asked a zillion times. 
There are two lists: unsafe structures list, and (forget actual name) but the list of homes that have violations, but are not condemned (yet.)

And this is why I firmly believe the city is at risk in a lawsuit.  Once you read the HPC minutes, you see that per MCCD there was indeed a formal track and houses were put on it.  In my opinion, any house taken with an approval by HPC to be put on the formal track was taken illegally (with false information) and the owners should sue for compensation.  At least that would wake up the city up to what the MCCD has been and is really doing.

[Demosthenes]

Maybe StephenDare and Chris can take the case. Arent they lawyers?

[Timkin]

I wish someone would challenge and could put a stop to this.  It would be one thing if this building (and literally hundreds like it )  were really in danger of collapse. That was not the case here at all.  One more landmark destroyed.  The only one making out is the demolition contractor.

[ChriswUfGator]

If anyone is truly interested, I am always happy to talk. But I really don't know what the damages would be, or who the plaintiff would be? A big part of the problem here has been that the owners have usually been on board with what's happening, if they aren't the actual ones pushing for the demo.

Several times, the owners have been the actual ones begging for the demo before HPC. One guy wanted to add onto his yard, another (the doctor) has an agenda that I believe probably includes putting up apartments since he appears to be combining the lots in a row. Out of all of these demos, there was only one guy who wasn't completely onboard with it (the one on Liberty) and I don't know if his has come down yet. Normally, the owners are either fully complicit in it, or just don't care. And the one who did care IIRC had no money, filing fees alone are $400 now.

There is a whole bag of tricks you can use, I have rarely seen code enforcement get anything right when it comes to notice and due process. Legally these all probably could have been stopped. But I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get these people to take any action, when they're usually the ones who want it demolished in the first place. Why people buy in a historic neighborhood only to behave this way, I haven't a clue. But it isn't just COJ doing this, as of late most of the owners seem complicit in it, either because they want the land for something else or don't want to deal with code fines and/or maintaining the property.

[strider]

While there are indeed some who want to demo their house, actually very few start off that way.  It is the rolling fines that change their minds.  And the constant harassment from MCCD.  In one case, the harassment was on a house that looks totally complete and gorgeous on the outside and is well maintained at all times but the inside was not complete so the rolling fines were being threatened if not already accruing. It is scare tactics and nothing more. In fact, I recently got told that a couple were informed that if they agreed to demo their house, the rolling fines would be waived.  Second hand info I'm afraid, but interesting all the same.

You also have to remember that a group was telling buyers of these at risk houses that if they bought them, they could certainly tear that "eyesore" down. Many got to with the support of those charged with preserving this historic district. Shameful at best. Criminal in my eyes.

When you know the houses in question and you read the HPC minutes of the sworn testimony from MCCD officers, you see that the formal track was real at least to them and the HPC and that the houses were all swaying back and forth on their own, missing all their structure and ready to fall down on innocent passersby.  In the very least, we need to find it a bit odd that the "formal track" can take a year or more and not one single house as fallen on a person walking by it.

In one case where I was able to see the professional engineer's report, the engineer hired by MCCD to support their claims of a house ready to crumble, the engineer claimed that a strategic pier was missing.  I looked for the missing pier and found that there never was one at that location.  The area was always cantilevered out the three ish feet.  Whether the engineer was innocently mistaken or purposefully misleading at the request of MCCD, I can not know.  Even with the Patterson Apartments, while the structural issues looked very bad, they were only about 10 to 15% of the cost of rehabilitation.  In most cases, it is even less than that.  In the case of the house taken for social reasons by a current SPAR Council board member, it was a less than the cost of just buying the new a/c equipment.

Back on subject a bit, the "formal Track" was presented as a real thing.  When we tried to appeal the demotion on the Patterson apartments when the actual COA was issued recently, we were told that we could not appeal it because the actual time period to appeal had passed long ago. The actual approval was done at the HPC meeting when the house was placed on the formal track.  When we pointed out that the law states the appeal time limit begins upon the last person who has to sign off on the COA and that happened just now, we got told the COA was just a courtesy and did not count.  It seems the non-existent "formal track" is pretty real to me as they are using it to continue to take houses.  Of course, I could be mistaken that a city department providing false and mis-leading information to get approval for something is illegal and perfectly acceptable to our legal system.  But I hope not, for all our sakes.

Bottom line is that it seems the city is using it's interpretations of the laws to protect itself from something.  And from past experience, they only seem to respond well to lawsuits they might lose, a law suit is the only way to stop the demolitions of houses on the non-existent "formal track" that they used false information to get approval for.  It would be best if owners of lost houses or at risk houses brought the suit, but I also think a preservation organization could as well.

And of course, I'm not a lawyer, just a pissed off preservationist and resident of this city, so what do I know?

[avs]

I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield.  Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved.  Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed.  Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing.  A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely.  As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight.  That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.

What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes.  Without these, all of our property value will decline.

Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over?  Because being in a historic district has value. 

[wsansewjs]

After being away from MetroJacksonville on a hiatus status, I just came back and I see this completely fucking bullshit fact that Patterson Apartments has been completely demolished.

Words cannot contain how much angry and furious I am. Call me selfish, but if I ever run into one of officials who supported this demolition, considered yourself warned because I am not going to be Mr. Nice Guy and will rub the question of WHY? in your face.

I just feel like my soul just got gnawed by the tragedies happening in Springfield. It is not only the charm Springfield is slowly losing, but considering the fact Springfield falls under the jurisdiction of National registered historic district.

Come on, those of you who wish to support this continuing trend of reckless and blasphemy demolitions on some "formal tracks", please have a heart because you are a human. Don't ever forget about that.

Home is what you make home out of it. There are people who loves Springfield who are trying to make their homes their own and their neighbors.

-Josh

[ChriswUfGator]

I think there are grounds for a law suit from anyone/group owning property in Historic Springfield.  Historic Springfield is a Nationally designated Historic District - these structures are supposed to be preserved.  Allowing them to come down affects all of our property value in that the very character of the district is being destroyed.  Houses being boarded up and ready for renovation amongst a plethora of already renovated houses are one thing.  A bunch of vacant urban land that is uncared for is something else entirely.  As a realtor, driving people around Springfield, its not the boarded up houses that "scare" people (these inspire most people) its the perception of blight.  That includes overgrown land, the partial rehabs (why didn't they finish?), trash and debris (do the people who live here take pride in where they are living?), lack of commercial, etc.

What Springfield has as its foundation and springboard are the historic homes.  Without these, all of our property value will decline.

Otherwise why has anyone bought in Springfield at all and not 2-3 blocks over?  Because being in a historic district has value. 

There *may* be grounds for a suit on that basis, but Preservation SOS would need to be restructured, or else you'd need to find an owner involved in one of these situations. Otherwise, as a general rule, you can't sue because my house got knocked down. The historic designation is federal, and done as a district. The individual properties aren't registered and aren't protected at the state level. That that needs to be fixed. But I have larger ideas for all of this with the new administration in office, I emailed J&G this morning.

[ChriswUfGator]

While there are indeed some who want to demo their house, actually very few start off that way.  It is the rolling fines that change their minds.  And the constant harassment from MCCD.  In one case, the harassment was on a house that looks totally complete and gorgeous on the outside and is well maintained at all times but the inside was not complete so the rolling fines were being threatened if not already accruing. It is scare tactics and nothing more. In fact, I recently got told that a couple were informed that if they agreed to demo their house, the rolling fines would be waived.  Second hand info I'm afraid, but interesting all the same.

You also have to remember that a group was telling buyers of these at risk houses that if they bought them, they could certainly tear that "eyesore" down. Many got to with the support of those charged with preserving this historic district. Shameful at best. Criminal in my eyes.

When you know the houses in question and you read the HPC minutes of the sworn testimony from MCCD officers, you see that the formal track was real at least to them and the HPC and that the houses were all swaying back and forth on their own, missing all their structure and ready to fall down on innocent passersby.  In the very least, we need to find it a bit odd that the "formal track" can take a year or more and not one single house as fallen on a person walking by it.

In one case where I was able to see the professional engineer's report, the engineer hired by MCCD to support their claims of a house ready to crumble, the engineer claimed that a strategic pier was missing.  I looked for the missing pier and found that there never was one at that location.  The area was always cantilevered out the three ish feet.  Whether the engineer was innocently mistaken or purposefully misleading at the request of MCCD, I can not know.  Even with the Patterson Apartments, while the structural issues looked very bad, they were only about 10 to 15% of the cost of rehabilitation.  In most cases, it is even less than that.  In the case of the house taken for social reasons by a current SPAR Council board member, it was a less than the cost of just buying the new a/c equipment.

Back on subject a bit, the "formal Track" was presented as a real thing.  When we tried to appeal the demotion on the Patterson apartments when the actual COA was issued recently, we were told that we could not appeal it because the actual time period to appeal had passed long ago. The actual approval was done at the HPC meeting when the house was placed on the formal track.  When we pointed out that the law states the appeal time limit begins upon the last person who has to sign off on the COA and that happened just now, we got told the COA was just a courtesy and did not count.  It seems the non-existent "formal track" is pretty real to me as they are using it to continue to take houses.  Of course, I could be mistaken that a city department providing false and mis-leading information to get approval for something is illegal and perfectly acceptable to our legal system.  But I hope not, for all our sakes.

Bottom line is that it seems the city is using it's interpretations of the laws to protect itself from something.  And from past experience, they only seem to respond well to lawsuits they might lose, a law suit is the only way to stop the demolitions of houses on the non-existent "formal track" that they used false information to get approval for.  It would be best if owners of lost houses or at risk houses brought the suit, but I also think a preservation organization could as well.

And of course, I'm not a lawyer, just a pissed off preservationist and resident of this city, so what do I know?

+1

And this is particularly egregious, because this building was solid brick. As you know, being a contractor, the whole roof and wooden inner structure can be complete toast and the property will still stand without endangering anything else.

[hooplady]

The ONLY thing that makes a house fall down in Springfield is a bulldozer, and even that took several attempts on the Patterson.

As Joe points out, anyone who has actually renovated one of these knows that the structural stuff is cheap.  I can't remember how many beams and joists were rotten under mine, but I would have gladly traded joists for the trimwork that the termites had devoured.  Apparently mine was just waiting to fall on someone as well.

[sheclown]

The ONLY thing that makes a house fall down in Springfield is a bulldozer, and even that took several attempts on the Patterson.

As Joe points out, anyone who has actually renovated one of these knows that the structural stuff is cheap.  I can't remember how many beams and joists were rotten under mine, but I would have gladly traded joists for the trimwork that the termites had devoured.  Apparently mine was just waiting to fall on someone as well.

Amen!