First Mothballing COA applied for! & its us :)

[Tacachale]

Good work, guys. Do you anticipate Municipal Code's response will be in this vein in the future?

[ChriswUfGator]

Good work, guys. Do you anticipate Municipal Code's response will be in this vein in the future?

We really don't know whether they're finally seeing the light and are actually onboard with mothballing, or whether they just realized it just wasn't going to go well for them with the facts in this case, and decided this wasn't the one to fight about. We really have no way to know, and their behavior as it relates to this COA was definitely unexpected, and totally out of character for MCCD. We are all still speculating on why they did what they did, but at the end of the day I am not sure there is any real way to know. I suppose time will tell whether there is a long-term attitude change underway or if they realized they were boxed in on this particular one by the facts.

The thing they will come to realize, if the latter is the case, is that the facts on almost all of the properties on the demolition list in Springfield are the same as this one. There are generally a bunch of citations for alleged structural concerns, that when you actually look at it, these allegedly life-threatening deficiencies wind up being nothing more than loose pieces of trim, or worse, total fabrications. The facts on Walnut Court were unfortunately not exceptional, they're actually pretty typical. As soon as MCCD has to explain to a bunch of outside people why, exactly, the property is unsafe, in a setting where "because we said so" isn't an acceptable answer, and where the people they are explaining it to are familiar with construction, then you may as well stick a fork in them.

This goes back to a larger problem. Over the past 5 or so years, MCCD has unilaterally changed the definition of "unsafe" from its actual meaning, and its meaning as intended by Chapter 518, to something else entirely by conflating it with "unlivable." Code's position is that, if a house isn't fit to live in, then it is "unsafe." Which is hogwash, the actual standard for "unsafe" is really whether the property poses any threat to neighboring properties or persons, not whether the house is ready to start living in tomorrow.

There has been this definition shell-game going on, I'd venture to guess, and as has certainly been documented on this forum, that 80%-90% or more of the houses demolished in Springfield by MCCD had little or nothing structurally wrong with them. Code routinely argues with a straight face that houses are safety hazards because they need wiring, despite the electricity being disconnected, or because of a roof leak, or because the doors/windows aren't secure, etc., etc., etc. Something has to be done to reverse this definition-shift, it's really the problem behind most of the demolitions.

[Tacachale]

^Well, hopefully it's a tide shift with them, and they won't push it too hard on houses of a similar condition to this one. If not, then hopefully at least they can be contended against in the meetings, and you'll eventually wear them down about salvageable properties, though that sounds like a tremendous waste of everyone's time, including theirs.

[iloveionia]

The thing they will come to realize, if the latter is the case, is that the facts on almost all of the properties on the demolition list in Springfield are the same as this one. There are generally a bunch of citations for alleged structural concerns, that when you actually look at it, these allegedly life-threatening deficiencies wind up being nothing more than loose pieces of trim, or worse, total fabrications. The facts on Walnut Court were unfortunately not exceptional, they're actually pretty typical. As soon as MCCD has to explain to a bunch of outside people why, exactly, the property is unsafe, in a setting where "because we said so" isn't an acceptable answer, and where the people they are explaining it to are familiar with construction, then you may as well stick a fork in them.

Absolutely spot on. 
To justify their existence they make up stories. 
Walnut Court is proof and I would gather in the infamous "unsafe structure list," that comprises near 139 houses, there are dozens more houses the same. 
Being safe, and being habitable are entirely different.

[Debbie Thompson]

There's on on Pearl Street that went on "formal track" and the testimony included there's a piece of the roof it flapping in the wind, creating a danger.  Really?  That can be fixed in 10 minutes with a handful of nails, but the the house is on the formal track to be demolished.  Ridiculous.

[Timkin]

There's on on Pearl Street that went on "formal track" and the testimony included there's a piece of the roof it flapping in the wind, creating a danger.  Really?  That can be fixed in 10 minutes with a handful of nails, but the the house is on the formal track to be demolished.  Ridiculous.

What amazes me is that the City seems to have a bottomless , endless supply of money to raze these places, instead of , as Debbie pointed out,  taking a half hour to tack a dozen nails into a piece of roofing .

In an economy where people are laid off from jobs in the city, The City is crying broke, yet demolition continues full speed ahead, this is completely stupid reasoning.    Good grief, if a loose piece of roofing is what is putting a house on the formal track , give me a call. I ll go nail it in place free of charge.  Completely absurd.

[ChriswUfGator]

There's on on Pearl Street that went on "formal track" and the testimony included there's a piece of the roof it flapping in the wind, creating a danger.  Really?  That can be fixed in 10 minutes with a handful of nails, but the the house is on the formal track to be demolished.  Ridiculous.

Typical MCCD. Has anyone contacted the owner to see whether they want to donate, or whether they'd let us just fix the small portion of loose roofing material and request a reinspection?

[iloveionia]

The one on Pearl Street Debbie is talking about is Tarpon owned.  I personally wrote (handwritten) letters to 15 homeowners, their houses I believed to be on the formal track (this was prior to MCCD giving up the full excel doc with "formal track" information.)  Nada.  Only Jeff Waltz ever replied to me when I wrote a letter.  I've paid to do the "people search" stuff on corps and LLCs when I am certain I have the right individual.  I've made those calls and nothing.  Either no answer, number doesn't accept calls, out of service. 

Contact was made with a local resident who owns a formal track home, but that owner is not willing to donate, sell, or fix-up.  They wish only to let code take their course.  This contact was made in these last 3 weeks. 

On behalf of PSOS I am writing over 100 letters to homeowners with condemned homes.  HPC sent out a letter in this last month to condemned homeowners regarding mothballing.  We have a few doors to knock on of a few other local residents who own formal track homes.  It is not an easy process.  It is my feeling that owners (to some degree) are tired of code's harassment and ignore any of the good stuff that may come along.  It is why I send cards, with everything handwritten, to (hopefully) encourage the recipient to open it and not toss. 

[sheclown]

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/228954/3/Historic-structures-to-be-mothballed-in-Jacksonville

[iloveionia]

http://downtownjax.firstcoastnews.com/news/news/65513-historic-structures-be-mothballed-jacksonville

^^^this one has the TV news clip.
Whoot!

[Springfielder]

I'm not finding the news clip, just a photo of Jax and the article 

[sheclown]

Work began on the window boarding today.  Nicole has planned a clever and unique way to add ventilation to the plywood.  Wait until you see it.

Tomorrow we begin prepping the wood for paint.  Nicole has been busy picking out paint colors -- we have decided to change the paint scheme, to brighten it up a bit with a new vibe.

Joan is ever vigilant with yard maintenance, although she will be recruited as painter on Friday (shhh...she may not know this...let's have it be a surprise).

Should you want to help out, just show up.  Or just show up to check us out.

You know where we are:  423 Walnut Court.

[iloveionia]

Ha!  We'll be there tomorrow, Friday, and likely Saturday.  Come on out!

[Springfielder]

LOL...I'll be back tomorrow, and have no problem with painting 

[Debbie Thompson]

I can come this weekend.   (Hey...start from the top and save me the low places.  :-) LOL)