Save the Bostwick Building!

[Miss Fixit]

Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

Right on, Pinky.  I'm in.  If we had 100 preservationists who would contribute $5000 each we could buy the building and stabilize it, landmark it and apply for preservation funds from the city.  How about 1000 people with $500 each?  It can be done.

[mbwright]

I'm surprised the city has not declared it unsafe, and issued an emergency demo order.  I honestly think it is too little, too late, but miracles do happen.  The fines from the city should have been many years ago, when the roof started to leak, when the interior was is good order. 

[Pinky]

Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

Right on, Pinky.  I'm in.  If we had 100 preservationists who would contribute $5000 each we could buy the building and stabilize it, landmark it and apply for preservation funds from the city.  How about 100 people with $500 each?  It can be done.

Not me kiddo - I think it should be torn down, and I have much better things to do with my time and money.  I'm just tired of all of these hand-wringers moaning about how somebody should do something to save all these buildings.  If it's such a compelling cause, cowboy-up and do something.  Talk is cheap.

[fsujax]

This is an intriguing idea. Maybe a non-profit can be set up, all donated money goes to that entity to help buy the building and secure it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will be the first to donate $500. I really dont want to see the building torn down and the lot left vacant.

[bornnative]

fwiw, past indications regarding this property are that the City would likely set aside the accrued fines if a meaningful buyer and plan can be put forth to mitigate the structural decay AND redevelop the building.  They have seemed less than willing to set aside the fines solely after a change in ownership unless there is a real plan - and actual funding - for re-entering the building into productive stock (read: tax producing).  Establishing an entity, nonprofit or otherwise, to buy the building is only half the battle.  I've put money into this already...some of it I still have, some of it I won't get back, but if someone can take the lead, I'll be second in line behind fsujax to send in a check and share lessons learned from past experiences with this structure.

[Debbie Thompson]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-08-30/story/good-bye-jaguar-historic-jacksonville-building-could-be-slated#ixzz258zMeMlS

1)  "Val Bostwick, whose family has owned the site since the 1800s, (underline mine) said the family can’t afford a restoration and would love to see the 7,650-square-foot building sold to someone who would preserve it."
 
I of course know nothing about the Bostwick family finances, but wish the roof would have been repaired when it was a small issue.  Then at least it would be easier to save. 

2)   "But with no real interest from anyone at a reduced price of $325,000 and daily fines since springtime stacking up, they filed for the demolition permit this month." 

As much restoration as this building needs, $325,000 seems pretty high.  It may be the land value alone, but to save the building that means so much to them, maybe the family could consider donating it or reducing it further, should someone with an interest and funding come along.  I know.  Easy for me to say. It's not my money.  Just a "what if." 

3)  "Owners asked for a demolition permit after the city started fining them $100 a day because of its deteriorated state."

Help not hinder.  Another case for losing the fines, which do nothing to save buildings, but instead cause the demolition of buildings.  Same reason the Wormans decided to demo a 100-year-old building, I believe.  But I could be wrong about fines for Wormans.



Oh...and I can ill afford $500, but if enough people are up for it, and my $500 will help make it happen, I'll scrounge it up some way.

[John P]

Do a Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/

[Timkin]

This is an intriguing idea. Maybe a non-profit can be set up, all donated money goes to that entity to help buy the building and secure it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will be the first to donate $500. I really dont want to see the building torn down and the lot left vacant.

I don't have $500.00 presently to put up for it, but Id gladly donate.  Time and labor effort.  I think the non-profit idea is stellar, but under the circumstances, I do not see it buying the Bostwick building any time, if the owner / city wants to see it taken down.

[ben says]

Do a Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/

Great idea

[PeeJayEss]

Kickstarter technically can't be used for non-profit or "cause" contributions. There are other, similar, services though that may.

[sheclown]

How would a $500 deal work, MissFixIt.?

[Timkin]

Why does it have to be Shad Khan, or for that matter, somebody else?  It would be a simple matter for the preservation-minded posters here to form a LLC and raise money to buy and restore the Bostwick. 

Deeds, not words.

^ About to embark on a non-profit.  Have been doing the labor deed for quite some time.   The preservation-minded have been at work ---not just talking.    So when you seem unwilling to help, I don't quite get your point?  If the owner is unwilling to try to save their own building (Which is and has evidently been the case for quite some time, otherwise it would have a roof and not now be a failing building) SOME ONE ELSE HAS TO . 

When the City is supposed to have ordinances in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening, BUT STILL lets it happen, the ordinance is useless, and so too , is the people attempting to enforce that, by waiting till the damn thing is about to collapse to put pressure on the owner to do something.

A home owner CANNOT get away with it... so why can the owner of a commercial building?

One can say we are trying to direct the owner on how to spend their money.  No we can't .  but the City can , and mysteriously does at the 11th hour.   There is a great deal wrong with that logic.

Now , even if the owner would donate the property (which is not going to happen) some entity would have to be on hand immediately with a lot of cash to immediately take care of a problem THE NEGLIGENT previous owner would not take care of.

If the owner has not had the means to do anything with the building but will sit on it , let it deteriorate to the point that it now is a hazard, not only are THEY negligent but so is the City for not, ages ago , MAKING them either fix it, sell it , or DONATE IT to someone who can.

Again here, 10 years ago even , this could have been much more easily prevented.  Now it will be so costly it is only worth it, to a very small group who really cherish the few pieces of history allowed to remain... and those numbers are dwindling pretty rapidly too.

It hilarious that someone would state to "cowboy up" and put our money where our mouth is , when they would not lift a finger to help because they do not care.  I don't have the money .. I do have the time and can help labor wise.  That is better than sitting here condemning those of us who would like to save these places.

[Timkin]

I can put 100 in now.  Not 500 now.

[Pinky]

I don't recall "condemning" anyone for their desire to help; I was addressing those who seem content to complain and hope that someone else (in this case Shad Khan) will step up and fix problems. 

[Timkin]

"I don't recall "condemning" anyone for their desire to help; I was addressing those who seem content to complain and hope that someone else (in this case Shad Khan) will step up and fix problems.  "

Not me kiddo - I think it should be torn down, and I have much better things to do with my time and money.  I'm just tired of all of these hand-wringers moaning about how somebody should do something to save all these buildings.  If it's such a compelling cause, cowboy-up and do something.  Talk is cheap.

No.. that doesn't sound like you're "condemning" anyone... but you're apparently tired of "hearing it" so why are you even on the thread venting about something you don't care about , nor would put your time into , or your money?   Why does it matter to you IF we approached Mr. Kahn or someone else with some money to help the cause? How exactly does that affect your life?

If not for Wayne and Delores Weaver, another beautiful landmark , The John Gorrie, would not be renovated. By now it too would probably be trashed and condemned.  That one by the way was far from an inexpensive tab.  They did it probably knowing they would never turn a profit, so thank god, for them , for their love and support in historic preservation , and for  people with means.  I wish more of us had them. I wish more of us cared and wanted to get our hands dirty and wanted to dig and search and beg for a way to save these places because they ARE important to some of us.  Unfortunately we are outnumbered by the "I don't give a damn's.   It is a depressing though that we live in a City where it seems the powers that be will not rest until anything and everything that is historic or significant is only available in a photograph.  nothing physically left. We can't have that! God forbid!   

Your opinion is welcome , has been heard and so noted.  So since this subject is of no interest to you, please go voice about something you DO care about  on a thread where you don't have to listen to "hand -wringers" vent about  something you have no interest in... I mean, does that make sense? Why waste anymore of your precious time? OR OURS for that matter . 

You're very right that talk is cheap. I personally, and many here do not sit on the side lines and do nothing but sit and complain. That you conclude this must be how it is , is short-sighted.  I don't think you care enough to take a closer look.

I AM doing something.    Many of us are.  You state we are just hand-wringers and I take issue with that statement because, most importantly it is completely untrue.  I have to keep reminding myself that this is not a subject of interest to you. You want the building gone. You stated so..end of discussion.

It IS VERY DEFINITELY a compelling cause to some of us to see this one and every single one of them we can ,saved and put to some practical use. 

This one probably wont be saved.... largely in part ,because the people that care are far outnumbered by those that do not and would never be bothered to get their hands dirty , or help in any way, AND they are tired of hearing us.  We have a City run totally ass-backwards, an ordinance to protect these places, that is not honored in any way, shape, form or fashion,  and an MCCD with a sick, twisted passion to demolish everything in sight they deem ready for the bulldozer. It leads me to think they might get kick-backs from the demolition companies, so keep those condemn notices coming , but hey, that is mere speculation on my behalf.