Historic Springfield Demolition COA signed today: 1647 Pearl

[sheclown]

Dear Historic Preservation Commissioners,
We respectfully request that you repeat a series of motions as you did in April 2009 in regards to removing a house from the formal track list.
The process according to the minutes and general counsel are as follows:

1.) motion to reconsider
2.) second and vote to reconsider
3.) motion to remove from the formal track
4.) second and a vote to remove from the formal track

We appreciate your respect for our Nationally Recognized Historic Neigborhood and our desire as a community to "save the houses." All of them.

We need an emergency session of the Historic Planning Commission.

http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1785

[iloveionia]

Rock on.  Monday can't come soon enough.
Our neighborhood deserves this.  We've lost too much.

[sheclown]

This is an excerpt from the April 28th 2010 HPC meeting. Note how several commissioners speak out in favor of the building. SPAR speaks out in favor of it. One of the commissioners was actually inside the building and considered it in ok shape. Yet, even though the Code representative has issues with the pictures (if I interpret the notes correctly), and can't really proof her assertion that the roof is about to blow off, the house is added to the "Formal Track for Demolition". As far as I can tell, living about a block from the house, the roof is still sitting on top of the house today.

Okay.  The third condemned property to be heard tonight is 1647 North Pearl Street.

MS. MARTINAGE:  Mr. Chairman, this is another structure that is boarded and secured. It does not have an open back half like the last one did.

In my site visit, I did not see any major structural issues, any settling or anything.  It just looked like an abandoned house that was waiting for someone to come in and give it a little bit of TLC. That's the view from the alley (indicating).  You know, I did not see any major issues.  It looked -- and -- just empty condition to me.  But, you know, it is boarded and secured at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

MS. LANCASTER:  At this address, at 1647 North Pearl, we actually do have an order to abate by demolition on it also.  And please note, at the back of the house, on the chimney side in that picture, yesterday when I was out there taking my pictures, the wind was actually raising the tin roof.  It was actually -- I was surprised.  I was waiting for it to blow off to the neighbor's yard. So the wind condition on that roof is an issue.  We have several other issues with this. We actually had this at the commission back in August of last year and at that time the commission denied the formal track.  And I don't even think I asked for conditions at that time. I think I just accepted it because it was in such good shape. I do have some issues with my pictures that I've given you with the roof condition of the structure, with a commission already denying it and we're now nine months later, we're still not having anything done, the roof condition itself, I am requesting the formal track for demolition for this structure.

THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Anyone else here to speak on this matter?

(Ms. Boydston approaches the podium.)

MS. BOYDSTON:  Brenda Boydston, executive director for SPAR. We are asking for a deferral of this as well.  We have a new committee that's formed that is aggressively going to go after getting new owners or locating these. So please defer it.

THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you. Anyone else here to speak?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)

MS. SIMON:  I don't want to sound redundant, but it just -- if the roof -- if we're having problems with the roof, it seems like it would be cheaper to repair the roof than tear the house down.  The City is going to pay 6- or $7,000 to abate the house and tear it down and then it goes in the landfill.  It just seems like it makes more sense to repair the roof.

MS. LANCASTER:  Ms. Shaw, can you help me here? Actually, the Property Safety Division is not in the -- does not repair properties, does not do rehabing.

MS. SHAW:  Yeah, that's the owner's responsibility --

MS. LANCASTER:  That's the owner's --

MS. SHAW:  -- is to repair the property. And after numerous notices from the City to the owner to come in and make -- and correct these violations, then the City has no other alternative but -- other than the ordinance giving them authority -- and this board order by the special magistrate ordering the City and giving them approval to demolish the property to make it safe. So the City has done everything it can in order to make this building safe, short of demolishing it.  So that's where we are now. And as far as repairing the roof, that's the owner's responsibility.  And they're ignoring -- the owner is obviously ignoring the City, so -- and this is the City's alternative.

MS. LANCASTER:  And I have to say one other thing.  Please be aware of this too, that this case is a 1998 case.  We're 12 years trying to work with this owner.  So, I mean, 12 years later, this is -- you know, it's still standing.  We're still not rehabed. And the argument was -- and it was Ms. Simon back in August argued because we were actually taking both of the houses down, 1643 also, which was approved that night.  And as you see in this picture, it's still standing because it's taken me nine months to get it ready. So, you know, we can't rehab it.  We don't rehab properties.  I have to come in here and ask for an order to demo.  I'm going to ask not to defer this for six months because it's already been deferred by this commission nine months, and it's probably going to take me nine months to get it to the ground.  THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Anyone else here to speak on this matter?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)

THE CHAIRMAN:  I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission.

MS. SIMON:  I'll just be the bad guy and say this house is not that bad either.  It makes no sense.  This is maybe where we've met before to try to come up with some other solutions.  It just shows me that we need to come up with some other solution because -- the owner won't fix the roof, so let's tear the house down?  I mean, it --

THE CHAIRMAN:  Is the house for sale or anything?

MS. SIMON:  I think the owners are foreign and I think they have -- there's a language --

THE CHAIRMAN:  You have to speak into the mic.

MS. SIMON:  If it's the same owners, I've spoken to them in the past.  They're foreign. They have -- there's kind of a language barrier and maybe an understanding barrier where maybe SPAR can step in and help if they're going out, you know, aggressively trying to pursue this now.  I really applaud Brenda for trying to do this.

MS. SCHIFANELLA:  This property does feel different to me than the other one.  You know, the other one, I think the testimony was clear. There was nothing structurally at risk there. This property does look less sound.  And also I think, you know, the nine months has already been there.  I think if we defer this one, it should be a short-term deferment because this one has had its opportunity.  That's my opinion.  It's had nine months already.

MS. LANCASTER:  Mr. Chairman, I know you're
all in discussion, but in one of y'all's
pictures, if you don't mind, we actually do have
piers starting at the back.  You're seeing the
crack and seeing where they're missing.  And I
was supposed to bring that to your attention.
So there is actually issues with the structure.

THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.

MS. LANCASTER:  My apology.

THE CHAIRMAN:  Anybody want to make a
motion?

MR. MOORE:  I make a motion that we approve
1647 Pearl Street North for demolition and defer
that for three months.

THE CHAIRMAN:  We have a motion.  Do we have a second?

MR. CASE:  I'll second that.

THE CHAIRMAN:  We have a motion and a second. Any discussion by the commissioners?
COMMISSION MEMBERS:  (No response.)

THE CHAIRMAN:  All in favor say aye.

COMMISSION MEMBERS:  Aye.

THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you have approved 1647 Pearl Street North for demolition with a three-month delay.

Why did the commissioners testify that this house was not in bad shape and then vote to tear it down?

What are we missing here?

[iloveionia]

It's nauseating. 
They need to reverse their ridiculous decision. 
Obviously the house is not in eminent danger of falling.  Duh!!!!

[sheclown]

And, by the way, it costs...what...$7000 or more to demolish a house? 

I thought our city was having a financial crisis?  Do we really have money like this to waste?

Save a couple of houses and you could save someone's job.

[strider]

An interesting thought, if we do have to appeal this, it seems to me that rather than appeal the HPC decision, which is older than 21 days and has no COA attached to it, we are actually appealing the administratively approved COA to the demo contractor therefore the appeals process is different and we are actually just taking it to the HPC and would only have to pay the normal HPC fee.  We would not be appealing the original HPC decision in any way but rather the fact that we feel a demolition COA can not be legally approved by staff and also the demolition itself that was just now approved, which is different than the HPC approval of two years ago.  Then, if the HPC somehow upheld the new COA, then we would have to appeal that HPC decision through the normal HPC appeal process.  Then at least we would have a COA to appeal.

[avs]

So the commission voted to tear it down because the roof has some tin coming up on one side that the owner wont address?  That is how the city is dealing with lax owners?  "The owner won't coorperate so we will tear down the house!"  bullshit.  take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work. Period.  Otherwise there is no point in having a district that is a nationally designated historic district.  It really means nothing.  We might as well be the westside or arlington for God's sake!

[iloveionia]

You are correct.
Also, MCCD will tout that it has been in the "system" for too long.  The fines exceed the value of the home.  Blah, blah, blah.  Meanwhile, every home they have demolished leaves behind a scar that has tens and thousands of dollars of liens and fines on it, and likely multiple years of back taxes.  It is no help to our city or to our neighborhood.

[Timkin]

ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!

[Noone]

ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!

Simalarities with our HISTORIC promised 680' Downtown Public Pier. Sheclown looking forward to seeing you tonight.

[Kaiser Soze]

take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.

What authority is this?

[sheclown]

[Springfielder]

take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.

What authority is this?

The city has the authority (I don't know exactly what department, other than legal) to take ownership of the structure for the unpaid taxes and liens. Other cities do it and the auction or 'Sheriff' sale, but the city attorneys keep saying they don't want to be in the Real Estate business, so instead, they allow demo after demo and still never recover the monies owed. Tell me where the freaking sense in that is?

Taking houses down because of the owner failing to comply, or because the fines have gone above the value of the house is complete crap. This has got to stop!

[Debbie Thompson]

Well, first, I think the City is one of the largest land holders in the City, so I think they are already in the real estate business.  But they don't have to be in the historic homes real estate business.  They can take the house and sell it to someone for $1, or auction it, with a rider that requires a COA and a performance bond for the work completion.  If the work is not completed as agreed, they take the house back and sell it again.  Better than allowing people to let the house rot, and then tear it down.  Probably cheaper for taxpapers too since it costs thousands of dollars to demolish a house, and they already have real estate lawyers that could handle the paperwork for the take and sell idea, and the legal authority to do it.

As Springfielder said, other cities do it...cities that CARE about their historic fabric.

[Timkin]

take the house, (the city DOES have the authority to do this) auction it off to someone who will do the work.

What authority is this?

The city has the authority (I don't know exactly what department, other than legal) to take ownership of the structure for the unpaid taxes and liens. Other cities do it and the auction or 'Sheriff' sale, but the city attorneys keep saying they don't want to be in the Real Estate business, so instead, they allow demo after demo and still never recover the monies owed. Tell me where the freaking sense in that is?

Taking houses down because of the owner failing to comply, or because the fines have gone above the value of the house is complete crap. This has got to stop!

Could not agree more.  The mentality in place that this is the way to remedy homes/buildings that are neglected by destroying them needs to be removed, period.   We ( the taxpayers) should be in charge of what happens to our historic places.  Just reading the HPC Notes above , it is painfully evident that incompetence is running our city.  These people need to go.  Demolishing everything may end the problem in their eyes, but it is certainly taking a toll on we the taxpayers as well.