"Emergency" Demolition in Springfield

[Debbie Thompson]

John P, yes infill housing may be needed on EXISTING vacant lots.  My point was, we don't need any more of them.  Springfield has lost about 500 homes to various forms of demolition...fire, city "help" and owner request, etc....since we became an historic district.  We don't need more empty lots for infill housing.  We have plenty already.

[simms3]

^^^And clearly right now there is no demand for infill.  It was my long term hope that Springfield would become a very eclectic mix of old Queen Ann/Edwardian houses and modern apartments and houses...Atlanta has done this sort of mix very well and it makes for a very desirable neighborhood that attracts a wide range of folks.

Unfortunately, I don't think the "mix" will happen anytime remotely soon, and so yes - more and more empty lots to be built on in the future, but fewer and fewer opportunities to save an original home.

The fact that these demolitions continue under NRHP jurisdiction (or local historic preservation district) is a little baffling.  The whole point of historic designation is to prevent demolition or undue alterations, and to rally the preservationist troops to come in and save stuff with authoritative power.  It's definitely contrarian, the demolitions, but it also seems suspect/illegal?

[strider]

It wasn't all that long ago that a local developer along with the local preservation organization was helping Ms. Scott demolish house after house within the historic district.  When we started asking about the federally required 106, we got told they only used "general funds" for the demolitions. Of course, we do not believe this but getting the real info has proven difficult to say the least.

If I remember it correctly, about 10% of the housing stock was lost in the 65 years prior to 1985, which is when the RUDAT study was conducted and it was used  to get the historic designation.  In the twenty eight years since the RUDAT study, we have lost about 35% of the historic housing stock, mostly, it appears, to MCCD triggered demolitions. The total houses lost has been put at 533, opphs, now 534, by the folks down in the city's Historical Department. That just seems, well, criminal when you think about it.

[HangingMoth]

green house gets a better view.

I could see the house from my kitchen and it's very sad to see an empty lot where only a few days before stood a house that helped tell the history of this neighborhood. Now another vacant lot, it tells the story of carelessness. I was really hoping  this house would make it. 

[Timkin]

Its incredibly sad that a house is razed rather than shored up and mothballed.  People within the City management that make decisions like this just to prove the point that they can, makes no sense whatsoever.

[strider]

The following is just a guess.  Until we get the actual MCCD file on this house, we won't know for sure, however, based on past experience, I would say this is not far off base.

This house was built in 1904/ 1905 with it's first listed resident being the family of John Hubbard, then the treasurer of the J. H. McLaurin Company. It appears they lived in their home for about 6 years.

129 East 2nd St -- in its rooming house days

The house was most likely a single family home until the late 1930's when a housing shortage triggered many large and expensive to maintain homes to be cut up into duplexes and even quads. 

Sometime in the fifties to later sixties, it was probably converted to a rooming house.  While rooming houses are very much looked down on today, back then most were not only very much needed, they were an honorable way to make living.  Not only that, it was also an early version of “adaptive re-use” as the houses were often too expensive to maintain as just a single family or even a duplex. Finding a use for the houses helped save them. Based on the values listed, this house was in good shape in the early seventies and changed hands, ending up as one of the houses owned by Betty Dortch, AKA Betty Goodyear.  Permits show some updates through the years but trouble started with Crack in the eighties and values plummeted.  It became harder to maintain these houses regardless of use.

By 2001, with Historic Springfield coming up in values and more and more houses being worked on, a movement to eliminate the "terrible" legal rooming houses began.  The limited info I have tells me that most likely this house was closed down via DART in 2001.  In an attempt at fixing the issues, a permit was pulled and money spent,-- but what we now know that the owners of these then-legal businesses didn't is --  that the deck was stacked against them.

MCCD along with SPAR and several community leaders, some of which are still here, made sure that no matter how much money the owners spent on improvements, they would never get out of condemnation, at least not for a year and a day.

In the case of this house, the owner gave up and sold it to Beverly Brooks, who still owns the house -- sorry, now just the lot.  Taxes, by the way, are current.  Ms. Brooks had the house gutted in 2003 for the purpose of returning it to a single family home. There were several permits pulled even as late as 2007, but work stopped in 2010.  By 2011, the house was back fully in the MCCD system, a bit too late to be on the “formal track to demolition”.  Which is why the only legit way Ms. Scott could take this house was by an emergency.

While some will say the DART condemnation on a legal rooming house was a good thing, the end result was, more often than not, an empty house.  An empty house in MCCD's system (and as we know, the condemnation process makes it much harder to fix a house). Looking back on the process, the purpose of DART was not to close down the terribly run illegal boarding or rooming houses, but always  to target the legal ones. I know at least one case where an offer to buy out a rooming house business was made, but I believe it was never sincere.  It was much cheaper for those that wanted the rooming houses gone to have the city do their dirty work for them.

All of this no longer matters though.  What does matter is that the process of using DART to close down businesses and condemn houses started a trend that carries on today.  In fact, because they learned there were limitations to the original DART ordinance (1996), they gave more power to MCCD by 2007.  The loss of this house is the result of that, it is the poster child for the Abuse of Power those changes lead too.

An interesting observation is that-- while the days this house was used as a rooming house are looked down on -- it was still a livable, viable home for some.  (Note the clothes on the railing in the 1985 photo).  It is only after it was “saved” and being returned to its original single family use that it became an “eyesore” that even some so-called preservationists thought it had to go.  It goes to show that use is everything.  Not what the use is but rather that it is indeed being used.  In lieu of that, mothballing is the next best thing.

[sheclown]

The problem with DART, other than the displaced targeting of the properties for the crimes of the individuals, is that even the rationale of drug use is suspect.  I mean, really, is this about drug use or about removing a social class from a neighborhood?

If it were just about drug use, tell me the difference between a person snorting coke in a half a million dollar new house and a guy smoking crack in a $20 a night room? 

[MEGATRON]

Apache has for more eloquently stated the issue that I have been pushing.  The system in place right now obviously does not offer the necessary incentives to entice folks into taking the chance on rehabbing an old house.  Mothballing is a good start as is temporarily saves the structures while the system is revised.  However, there must be a plan to rehab the house after mothballing. 

Literally hundreds of million of institutional dollars are pouring into Florida right now buying up distressed property.  While I am not sure the type of investment is a positive one, the money is out there. 

I admire everyone's dedication to the cause.  I really do and I want to see this preservation movement succeed.  But there has to be a plan post-mothball for these structures.

Megatron how many historic houses have you owned or renovated?

Two

[sheclown]

"post-mothball plan for these houses" is that they still stand

Mothballing removes blight, safety issues and ensures monitoring

Ideally, all houses have heartbeats inside, but how do we know and predict the future of the housing market?  In the meantime, we abate the nuisance and preserve what we have because the alternative means losing who we are.  And in Springfield, we are a historic district.

[fsquid]

The problem with DART, other than the displaced targeting of the properties for the crimes of the individuals, is that even the rationale of drug use is suspect.  I mean, really, is this about drug use or about removing a social class from a neighborhood?

If it were just about drug use, tell me the difference between a person snorting coke in a half a million dollar new house and a guy smoking crack in a $20 a night room?

the first one pays more in taxes.

[sheclown]

^ in theory

[MEGATRON]

"post-mothball plan for these houses" is that they still stand

That is not a plan.

[sheclown]

And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from.  Often with barely securing the front door ?

I don't mean to discount financial hard times and the necessity of doing that but rather hope to illustrate the point that tomorrow (and the plans to deal with it) are beyond our control right now. What is in our control is making condemned homes safe and secure and removing the blight from the neighborhood. It is a brilliant strategy given to us from the city council through the hard work of Bill Killingsworth, Lisa Sheppard and Jason Teal. And I am grateful to have this tool.

Save the houses

[MEGATRON]

And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from.  Often with barely securing the front door ?

You mean that are owned by lenders?  They are unloading those fairly quickly.

Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them.  You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.

[MEGATRON]

And just what sort of plan is out there for the dozens of renovated houses that people are walking away from.  Often with barely securing the front door ?

You mean that are owned by lenders?  They are unloading those fairly quickly.

Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion and it does no good to worry about them.  You'd be better off focusing on getting mothballed homes into the hands of those that are willing to rehab them.

So quickly that the houses are being destroyed by neglect?  Um it doesnt sound like you really know what you are talking about (again) megatron.  Why not let the grown ups figure this one out?

I would expect that grown ups would have something better than mothball-and-hope-for-the-best as a plan of action.

Not sure what you have against me but I have been nothing but respectful in this discussion.  I appreciate the efforts of all involved in saving these structures.  I want to see it work.  I simply think that the status quo is not working.

I will remove myself from this conversation.  Happy mothballing.