Our History Disappearing Right Before Our Eyes

[Bativac]

I cannot believe they plan on tearing down that River Road home. Who is it that wants to live in an historic neighborhood but not an historic house?

It seems like there was a gigantic house built recently in San Marco that is already up for sale. Not sure if they tore anything down to build it but it sure is monstrous.

[mbwright]

Are there any existing homes on River Rd that are protected?  The two Swisher homes are certainly historic.  I would hate to see demolition start, and it tends to go like domino's in no time.

I agree, if you don't want a historic house, don't buy it.  I'm sure there are a number of new houses on the river available.

http://www.trulia.com/homes/Florida/Jacksonville/sold/2500876-2241-River-Rd-Jacksonville-FL-32207 shows many properties for sale. 

This is a Single-Family Home located at 2241 River Road, Jacksonville FL. 2241 River Rd has 5 beds, 4 ½ baths, and approximately 4,910 square feet. The property has a lot size of 1.27 acres and was built in 1936. The average list price for similar homes for sale is $1,081,760 and the average sales price for similar recently sold homes is $254,173. 2241 River Rd is in the San Marco neighborhood in Jacksonville, FL. The average list price for San Marco is $1,433,149.

[MEGATRON]

^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.

Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood.  Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty.  Completely different when we are discussing a single home.  What's the benefit there?  There is none.  There is no government incentive.  All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.

When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger?  They have to condemn it first.  The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff.  The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building.  If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building.  They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.

[mbwright]

Many of the Marsh and Saxelby homes are on the National Register of Historic Places. 
For the others, I see no logical reason to take them down.  Yes, they have been neglected for a long time, but certainly no worse than many that are still standing, and could be restored, or ones that were in worse condition that have been restored.

[Tacachale]

^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.

Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood.  Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty.  Completely different when we are discussing a single home.  What's the benefit there?  There is none.  There is no government incentive.  All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.

When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger?  They have to condemn it first.  The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff.  The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building.  If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building.  They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.

First, it's not particularly different talking about a neighborhood or a single building. If you have a contributing structure in a historic district you're still restricted in what you can do to it, however thousands of people still find them attractive properties to buy. Second, there are definitely incentives available to buildings that have historic landmark status. You can get local tax incentives and in some cases loans, federal incentives and grants. And whatever you think, not having the city demolish your building when you don't want it demolished is probably a pretty strong incentive for certain owners. Above you said that only a "minority" of historic designations are sought by property owners themselves, do you have any evidence that that's the case?

[MEGATRON]

^What is your evidence that it's a minority? For example the creation of the Riverside, Avondale and Springfield historic districts were initiatives of the people of those neighborhoods. Those alone probably make up a majority of historic designations in Jacksonville. There are plenty of benefits to the designation, such as not having the government knock down your building against your wishes.

Its very different when you are talking about an entire neighborhood.  Overlaying a preservation district over an entire neighborhood offers a buyer of a house in that neighborhood some certainty.  Completely different when we are discussing a single home.  What's the benefit there?  There is none.  There is no government incentive.  All it means is that it will cost you more to do any work on the structure.

When can the government knock down you building against your wishes other than when its determined to be a nuisance or danger?  They have to condemn it first.  The homeowner has plenty of opportunity to get the building up to snuff.  The City has given the Myers family, what, 15 years to address the safety of the building.  If they are seeking to protect those buildings under a historic protection ordinance, its only to further thwart the City, not to actually preserve the building.  They have done nothing in 15 years to preserve that building.

First, it's not particularly different talking about a neighborhood or a single building. If you have a contributing structure in a historic district you're still restricted in what you can do to it, however thousands of people still find them attractive properties to buy. Second, there are definitely incentives available to buildings that have historic landmark status. You can get local tax incentives and in some cases loans, federal incentives and grants. And whatever you think, not having the city demolish your building when you don't want it demolished is probably a pretty strong incentive for certain owners. Above you said that only a "minority" of historic designations are sought by property owners themselves, do you have any evidence that that's the case?

First off, those tax incentives amount to nothing.  Dump a bunch of money into improvements then possibly not pay taxes on the increased value resulting from those improvements.  That only makes sense for very few buildings.  Good luck getting a federal loans or grant, especially for a residential structure.

I'm sorry you can;t see the difference between an historic overlay and voluntarily designating your structure.  Its an enormous different.  I bought in Avondale because I like the history of the area and I know that the historic homes are not going anywhere.  The benenfit to me is that I am treated the same as others.

If Avondale was not within the historic overlay, why would I voluntarily designate my home.  I'm not getting any incentives.  Improvements will cost much more without the benefit that the homes around me have to comply with the same restrictions.

[hound dog]

Devil's Advocate: What if, in the River Road case, the house hasn't been maintained for upwards of forty years? What if neighbors consider it a hazard and an eyesore, and would welcome a new structure?  What if the new owners, by buying it, are buying into the neighborhood for the next forty years, and making a commitment to its improvement? What if immaculate Swisher mansions in the same style sit across the street, highlighting this house's relatively undistinguished lines?  What if the real history of the Cohen's legacy is actually attached to the St. James building downtown?  Is preservation an absolute imperative in this case?

[cline]

Megatron,

Having your home listed on the National Register of Historic Places does not put any restrictions on what the owner can and can't do with the property (local restrictions within a historic district- RAP for example, can be more stringent).  I would guess that owners who choose to go through this process do so because they actually give a damn about historic preservation and see value with having their home placed on the Registry.  As has been mentioned, there are also grant programs and tax credits (both state and local) that become available once a home is listed which could be attractive to home owners as well. 

[Tacachale]

Megatron, before you were talking about the burden on the homeowner of historic designations. The burdens are obviously pretty similar whether you have a contributing structure in a historic district or an independently designated property. You're now making my case for me that there are benefits to such a designation. I still don't see any indication that only a "minority" of such designations are sought by the homeowner.

[cline]

If a homeowner objects to having their property listed on the National Register it will not be listed.  For districts, the majority of property owners must agree or it will not be listed.  The government doesn't just automatically decide that your home is listed.

[MusicMan]

From my source on this deal the prospective buyer, not from Jacksonville,  loves that part of San Marco. Wanted to build a house there. Wanted a large lot. None on the market, did not want waterfront. Wanted that particular lot (1.3 acres). Knocked on the door, made an offer. Never asked or inquired about the homes historic value. Wanted the lot.

Hope if this goes through he will at least have a salvage sale so folks can buy any architecturally or historically important items from the home before it goes down.

[MEGATRON]

Megatron, before you were talking about the burden on the homeowner of historic designations. The burdens are obviously pretty similar whether you have a contributing structure in a historic district or an independently designated property. You're now making my case for me that there are benefits to such a designation. I still don't see any indication that only a "minority" of such designations are sought by the homeowner.

Of course they are similar.  The question was why anyone would voluntarily designate their own structure that is not in a historic district.

[MEGATRON]

If a homeowner objects to having their property listed on the National Register it will not be listed.  For districts, the majority of property owners must agree or it will not be listed.  The government doesn't just automatically decide that your home is listed.

Agreed.  The point was why would anyone volunteer for such designation.  If people saw value in this, you would see a good number of folks seeking such designation.  That's not the case however.  How many homes in San Marco have voluntarily sought such designation?

[cline]

Simple.  People would voluntarily attempt to designate their home because they see their home as historically significant.  Contrary to what you may believe, there is a large contingent of people that value historic preservation.  Aside from simply seeing historic value in your home there are other monetary advantages such as federal and state grant programs and tax breaks. 

And to answer your question there are quite a few homes on the registry from the San Jose Estates area.  The majority of which were Marsh & Saxelbye.

[Debbie Thompson]

Per the historic planning department, landmark status from COJ adds an extra layer of protection.  As a Springfielder, I can attest that living in an historic district will NOT keep the government from tearing your house down.  If that were true, we would have have lost so manyhouses to demolition since Springfield became a National Register Historic District in the 1980's. 

I assume COJ landmark status marks the property as valuable as a LOCAL landmark, and therefore worthy of special LOCAL protection, as opposed to a generic historic house.   But I could research that instead of making the assumption.