"Emergency" Demolition in Springfield

Debbie Thompson · May 23, 2013, 02:21:49 PM

At approximately 7:45 last night at HPC, at the request of Preservation SOS, the commissioners voted unanimously to "nicely ask" MCCD to stabilize the gable on the house located at 129 E. 2nd Street. It was a rehab job that had apparently been abandoned, and the gable was left inappropriately propped up with a 2x4, which wasn't enough to support it. This doesn't have the power of ordinance. It was just a "nicely ask" kind of a thing, asking them to help stabilize the historic home.

Kim Pryor, on behalf of Preservation SOS, who were there to support this request (among others) read aloud the section of ordinance 518 that gives MCCD the authority to do so, and the commissioners voted to ask MCCD to do it.

The head of MCCD, Mr. Praedo (sp?) strode up to the podium (I could practically see smoke coming out of his ears) and tersely told the commissioners MCCD was going to seek emergency demolition of 129 E. 2nd Street. Angela S (I love her) said, "Well, we can still write the letter, can't we?" And they voted to do so.

In a speed at which I have NEVER seen a city agency work, this historic home was demolished THIS MORNING! Hours after our HPC voted to simply ask MCCD to stabilize it, which I again add, city ordinance gives them the authority to do, instead MCCD demolished the home. Is the speed at which this happened a slap in the face to local preservationists who have been fighting so hard to save our historic homes? When it could have been stabilized? Not saying so, but it makes me wonder.

People were taking pictures. They will be posted shortly, I'm sure. They are already on Facebook.

ricker · May 23, 2013, 02:30:34 PM

This was a familiar site on my my bike ride!

Disheartening as it is, you all have done so much good and I know you're not ever going to give up, but I'm Still so sorry for the discouragement heartache and intense frustration and dismay!

Springfielder · May 23, 2013, 03:26:16 PM

Posting these for Jaxunicorn

fsquid · May 23, 2013, 03:31:00 PM

green house gets a better view.

Debbie Thompson · May 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM

Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.

John P · May 23, 2013, 04:15:11 PM

I am prosaving houses is historic areas and all but not all of them can realistically be saved. There should be a criteria or standards or soemthing. .

fsquid · May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM
Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.

Infill

Debbie Thompson · May 23, 2013, 04:38:33 PM

There are standards.

Ask MCCD, and they will tell you they are not structural engineers. I know this because I asked Elaine Lancaster at a meeting if she was a structural engineer, and she said no. I've heard them say at HPC that a house is unstable, but since they are not engineers, I don't know how they can say that with authority.

They will say a house should come down because it has "been in the system for 10 years." The house could be structually sound, although not pretty, but because it hasH "been in the system 10 years" it is demolished. I've heard that before at HPC, and that's exactly what Mr. Praedo said last night about 1481 W. 6th Street in Durkeeville (Or maybe referring to 5th and Myrtle they just demolished owned by same sisters. I forget which.) He said it was in the system for 10 years, and he had no confidence it would be re-habbed. This will be in the minutes. I'm not making it up. A contractor looked at the Myrtle St. house, and said the foundation was stable. So it doesn't have to be unstable. It can just be that MCCD has decided it should come down because there are code violations that haven't been resolved for a long time.

By current ordinance, without changing any laws, MCCD has the authority to stabilize houses instead of demolishing them. They have just refused to do it.

By current ordinance, without changing any laws, COJ has the authority to take homes from people who are allowing them to sit and deteriorate. They have just refused to do it.

Those are the facts, without comment on how I may feel about it.

Debbie Thompson · May 23, 2013, 04:39:34 PM

Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM
Green house missed out on neighbors next door. That's what community is about. :-) And Jacksonville lost another piece of its history.

Infill

First, there are already about 200 vacant lots in Springfield for infill housing. We don't need any more infill housing. And second, you are just trying to rile me up, so I'm done responding to you now. :-)

iloveionia · May 23, 2013, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: fsquid on May 23, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
Infill

Nationally Recognized Historic Neighborhood.
Preservation.
Save the houses.

iloveionia · May 23, 2013, 05:03:15 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on May 23, 2013, 04:38:33 PM
There are standards.

Ask MCCD, and they will tell you they are not structural engineers. I know this because I asked Elaine Lancaster at a meeting if she was a structural engineer, and she said no. I've heard them say at HPC that a house is unstable, but since they are not engineers, I don't know how they can say that with authority.

They will say a house should come down because it has "been in the system for 10 years." The house could be structually sound, although not pretty, but because it has "been in the system 10 years" it is demolished. I've heard that before at HPC, and that's exactly what Mr. Praedo said last night about 1481 W. 6th Street in Durkeeville. He said it was in the system for 10 years, and he had no confidence it would be re-habbed. This will be in the minutes. I'm not making it up. A contractor looked at the house, and said the foundation was stable. So it doesn't have to be unstable. It can just be that MCCD has decided it should come down because there are code violations that haven't been resolved for a long time.

By current ordinance, without changing any laws, MCCD has the authority to stabilize houses instead of demolishing them. They have just refused to do it.

By current ordinance, without changing any laws, COJ has the authority to take homes from people who are allowing them to sit and deteriorate. They have just refused to do it.

Those are the facts, without comment on how I may feel about it.

+1
You are correct with your facts. Thank you Debbie.

sheclown · May 23, 2013, 05:30:32 PM

We asked the city to help is save this house. The city said EFF you

iloveionia · May 23, 2013, 05:53:43 PM

Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
We asked the city to help is save this house. The city said EFF you

Precisely.

Quote from: Apache on May 23, 2013, 05:26:57 PM
What is the solution when a historic home will likely never be "worth" or valued monetarily at the cost it would take to restore it? We all know that's the case, and the problem, in many if not most of the cases.

Well, living and restoring in a historic neighborhood is different. It does cost more money if you want to truly restore. If you are rehabbing, I see not much of a difference with building new and rehabbing a gutted home. I've done it and rehabbing/restoring (I mixed both) afforded me a 1,000 sq ft bungalow, all new systems for $75,000 (including purchase price). This home I purchased gutted with no systems for $20k So IMHO, cheaper to rehab than build new. Plus, old wood is better wood. These gals fight to come down, as did 2nd street today. As sheclown states, this was simply and "EFF you."

strider · May 23, 2013, 06:45:02 PM

If any out there can't see it then you're not opening your eyes; this was a blatant "I'll show them" from Ms. Kimberly Scott, Chief of MCCD. A very "high school bully" type of response. It has never been more evident that Ms. Scott has been promoted way above her competency level.

sheclown · May 23, 2013, 06:55:44 PM

Sec. 518.151. - Emergencies.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Chapter, when, in the opinion of the Chief, an emergency exists which requires immediate action to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants of a property, the Chief shall take that action which he deems appropriate to abate the conditions which threaten the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants. The action may require the purchase of materials and labor adequate to render the property temporarily safe. When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted. In these cases, the Chief may order repairs to be made and the occupants to vacate the property immediately, as the case may be.

For purposes of this subsection, the circumstances supporting the determination that an immediate threat exists to the life and safety of the occupants and/or the public are those which would justify the entry of an emergency ex parte injunction, without notice, in a Circuit Court proceeding for abatement of a public nuisance. The exercise of this authority is not intended to be routine, but shall be reserved for those instances in which advance notice is impractical and the threat to public safety constitutes a true emergency.

Electrical service shall not be terminated except in those instances where the electrical service itself presents an imminent danger to public safety or where the risk of spark or explosion is present.

The mere existence of a code violation for a failure to secure permits shall not justify an order to vacate under this subsection. In those circumstances, the Chief may initiate any enforcement process authorized by law to correct any such violation.