Abuse of Power: the loss of 129 East 2nd Street

[strider]

Time line to demolition:

As far as we can find the info, these are the events to lead up to the demolition of this house.

Sometime prior to the SPAR D&R meeting, PSOS members looked at and came up with a plan to stabilize the remains of the front porch.  A member even offered to pay for the work but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it.

May 7, 2013 â€" SPAR's Design and Review meeing â€" this house was discussed as needing attention.   The same day, Autumn Martinage responded with the issue via e-mail to Chris Farley    and Joann Tredennick and stated that their concerns over  the roof on the house were unfounded but the front porch was a concern.  Ms Devall was not included in this e-mail as she was with Ms Martinage when the house was physically inspected.

May 8, 2013 â€" Chris Farley sends e-mail stated she did not believe the roof was not worse and that stuff must be falling and the “it is more than a “possible” structural issue.

May 13, 2013 â€" Nicole Lopez, President of PSOS sent a e-mail to Autumn officially asking that the Historic Preservation Commission hear the case and ask Municipal Code Compliance Department to structurally brace the at risk front porch roof. 

May 16, 2013 â€" the date the HPD agenda most likely became public meaning the date Ms Kimberly Scott would have found out the HPC was going to ask her to brace the porch.

May 21, 2013 â€" What we know for sure is that in this date a Notice of Pending Lien was prepared by Ms Scott.  What we can assume is that also on this date, a demolition contractor was contracted for to demolish the house.  What we are surprised at is that the house was not taken the next day. 

May 22, 2013 â€" AT the HPC meeting, several issues involving MCCD cases were heard.  During the discussion about the 2nd street house, HPC did officially vote to formally request that MCCD, Ms scott as Department Chief,  brace the front porch.  However, during the discussion, Mr. Prado of the MCCD stated that the house would be taken as an emergency.  He did not indicate that the process had already been started.  We know that the process had been initialized as the Notice of Pending Lien had been notarized on this day.

May 23, 2013 â€" The notice of Pending Lien was filed with the Clerk of Courts at 8:20 AM. By 10:00 or so, the demolition of 129 East Street had begun.  No permit could be found to have been pulled though those present were told there had been.

While the discovery of the May 21, 2013 Notice of Pending Lien does take away the idea that this was totally done in response to the HPC meeting's decision, it still remains that it was done by Ms Scott as an “I'll show you” tactic to PSOS and the HPC process. It also makes an argument that it wasn't much of an emergency as if it was truly an immediate threat to public safety, it would have come down as soon as that determination was made and the paperwork prepared, as is allowed by law, after the threat was removed. This was a premediated act of a bully using tax payer dollars to do whatever she felt like.

Autumn Martinage inspecting home prior to HPC meeting

I have listed the relevant sections of the Historic District and Landmark related ordinances at the bottom of the post.  I have included quotes from those sections as needed.

To begin with, I have been unable to find where the house at 129 East 2nd Street was ever a “formal track” house, meaning that there should be no argument that it must be handled under the current post mothballing ordinance version of the codes.

The Municipal Code Compliance Department must follow the same COA process as anyone else.  This was a change from the older version.  Today, a demolition must go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval.  Of course, as there must be, there is a provision to handle true emergencies.

A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection.

This obviously is for the cases where, as an example,  a fire has so badly damaged a building that it is more likely than not going to fall down on it's own and so truly poses a safety risk to those around it.  Common sense says that the city owes it to its residents to immediately remove the hazard.  There is also a protection to prevent the abuse of this.

However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action.

The fact that this says an application means that this after-the-fact COA still must go through the same process as any other demolition COA.  ie: Ms Kimberly Scott, the Chief of MCCD, has to justify the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street to the Historic Preservation Commission.   This brings us to the criteria the HPC will probably be directed to review this under by the Office of General Counsel (who will be looking at this to avoid potential lawsuits).

In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

Interesting as we already know that the HPC requested that Ms Scott have her department add additional bracing to stabilize the front porch on this house, which was by far the only part of the house that perhaps posed any public safety threat at all. This was done just 18 hours before the demolition contractor began tearing away at this historic house.

We also know that per the Office of General Counsel, once the HPC has denied permission to demolish a historic house, like they did at 1325 Laura Street, before Ms. Scott can decide to take the house as an emergency, some new event must occur. This would perhaps be a fire or a tree falling on the house that destablized the structure. In the case of 129 East 2nd Street, we have pictures dating back months with the house's condition unchanged.  We have e-mails from Chris Farley to both the Historical Department's staff and copied to Ms Scott where Ms. Farley claims that more material is coming off of the roof but Ms Autumn Martinage checking it herself and finding that the main house has seemed stable since 2011.

129 E 2nd Street appears to have lost some of its tar paper roof due to the elements (possibly from the storms last weekend) but it has not lost any more of the physical roof structure after reviewing Google Street View from 2011.  I did however note a possible structural issue with the street-facing gable feature that we will look at seeing if we can get that braced somehow.

separate porch roof in need of stabilization -- the basis of PSOS's request

We have pictures and statements from a very recent inspection done by contractors with restoration experience and city employees trained in historic matters saying the main house was stable.   We do have the possible issue with Ms. Scott bringing in her pals at Atlantic Engineering.  However, we have the results of the attempted demolition of 1647 Pearl Street and the personal testimony in how Atlantic Engineering handled another issue on East 9th Street to combat anything they might try to state.

Frankly, I do not see any way that this emergency demolition could be justified.  But of course, what will a denial at this point really mean?

I think the question is what should the penalties be when a department head like Ms Scott chooses to ignore the very laws she is charged with up-holding?  The penalties listed in the Historic Codes are really geared towards the owner or owners contractors rather than a rogue city department head.

a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner.

As you can see, this civil penalty could be pretty substantial, but how do you get a city employee to pay that even if it could be made to apply to her?  Also:

may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.

So, Ms. Scott could be made to replace the house.  Of course, in reality, any penalty would actually be paid by the city, meaning us taxpayers.

The best result of this would be a new department head, someone from outside the city preferably, or at least from outside the department, who would audit the policies and review the work by the department and do a thorough house cleaning.  The goal should be a Municipal Code Compliance Department that actually helps the citizens it serves.  Would it not be better for all of Jacksonville if a house that needed a simple and less expensive repair simply got that repair instead of years of taxpayer money being spent on a MCCD officer inspecting and doing paperwork and the eventual expensive demo that no one pays for?  Would it not be better for the neighbors if a house got mothballed if not repaired and looked good while it waited for a new owner or at least the ability of the current owner to fix it? That the MCCD officers actually worked with the residents of Jacksonville to achieve their proper goals?

Let's not let the loss of 129 East 2nd Street be for nothing.  Let's make it the symbol of positive change for all of Jacksonville.

abuse of power:  the loss of 129 E 2nd st

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:

Sec. 307.106. - Approval of changes to landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts; application procedures.

c) The City of Jacksonville and each independent agency of the City of Jacksonville or their agents or contractors shall be required to notify the Commission prior to planning and construction of improvement projects within an historic district or affecting a landmark or landmark site including, but not limited to, street improvements or repaving, sidewalks and curbs, drainage, water and sewer projects, street lighting, public utility poles, construction of utilities, building construction or demolition, tree trimming or removal, and other similar public improvements, except emergency actions that must be undertaken to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.


Sec. 307.111. - Enforcement; civil remedies.
b) In cases where a structure has been either demolished or relocated in violation of this Chapter, or where any building has to be demolished by the City pursuant to the property safety requirements of Chapter 518 and the owner of said building has received two or more notices from the City regarding neglect or failure to comply with Chapter 518 as they pertain to the structure, a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner. Additionally and separate from any civil penalty provision in this Section, there shall be no certificate of appropriateness issued for new development on the subject property for a period of one year from the date the City's judgment for civil penalties has become final, unless and only when such certificate of appropriateness is issued to correct and repair a partial demolition.
c)In addition to civil penalties, any person altering, demolishing or relocating all or any portion of property in violation of the provisions of this Chapter may be required to repair or restore any such property or to return it to its former location and condition.


Sec. 307.113. - Unsafe Structure Abatement.
In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

[sheclown]

SAVE THE HOUSES

[chris farley]

Quote
Sometime prior to the SPAR D&R meeting, PSOS members looked at and came up with a plan to stabilize the remains of the front porch.  A member even offered to pay for the work but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it.
Unquote
Why was not this revelation discussed at the DRC (it is not the D & R) when the subject was brought up.  Why was it said to me in the street afterwards that "Code should brace the porch", it would have saved a great heartache, maybe even the house and I would not have been accused of having the house demolished. 

[strider]

Quote
Sometime prior to the SPAR D&R meeting, PSOS members looked at and came up with a plan to stabilize the remains of the front porch.  A member even offered to pay for the work but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it.
Unquote
Why was not this revelation discussed at the DRC (it is not the D & R) when the subject was brought up.  Why was it said to me in the street afterwards that "Code should brace the porch", it would have saved a great heartache, maybe even the house and I would not have been accused of having the house demolished. 

This part of the quote sort of answers it, doesn't it? but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it..  At that point, we were not able to do it ourselves and it certainly was too much to trespass on someone else's  property and do what is really structural and permitted work.  You think we should have broken the laws, Ms Farley?  We certainly have bent them sometimes in the name of preservation, but to do un-permitted structural work seems a bit unwise, does it not? Unable to get permission from the owner to do it, it only made sense that the city. MCCD in particular, who has the right to do repairs even without the owners consent, to do the minor bracing needed.  Instead, Ms Kimberly Scott wished to play bully and take the entire house down.

Also, unless you really want to take responsibility, it is not yours to carry.  It is not PSOS' nor is it the HPC's fault.  It isn't even on the owner at this point.  Taxes were current on the house which tells me there was something else wrong, it wasn't just a case where a person up and walked away because they no longer cared.  In this particular case, the entire responsibility for the illegal demolition of this house lies with Ms Kimberly Scott, Chief of the Municipal Code Enforcement Department.  She alone choose to ignore the laws she is directed to follow and took this house for her own personal reasons.

[iloveionia]

Quote
Sometime prior to the SPAR D&R meeting, PSOS members looked at and came up with a plan to stabilize the remains of the front porch.  A member even offered to pay for the work but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it.
Unquote
Why was not this revelation discussed at the DRC (it is not the D & R) when the subject was brought up.  Why was it said to me in the street afterwards that "Code should brace the porch", it would have saved a great heartache, maybe even the house and I would not have been accused of having the house demolished. 

This part of the quote sort of answers it, doesn't it? but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it..  At that point, we were not able to do it ourselves and it certainly was too much to trespass on someone else's  property and do what is really structural and permitted work.  You think we should have broken the laws, Ms Farley?  We certainly have bent them sometimes in the name of preservation, but to do un-permitted structural work seems a bit unwise, does it not? Unable to get permission from the owner to do it, it only made sense that the city. MCCD in particular, who has the right to do repairs even without the owners consent, to do the minor bracing needed.  Instead, Ms Kimberly Scott wished to play bully and take the entire house down.

Also, unless you really want to take responsibility, it is not yours to carry.  It is not PSOS' nor is it the HPC's fault.  It isn't even on the owner at this point.  Taxes were current on the house which tells me there was something else wrong, it wasn't just a case where a person up and walked away because they no longer cared.  In this particular case, the entire responsibility for the illegal demolition of this house lies with Ms Kimberly Scott, Chief of the Municipal Code Enforcement Department.  She alone choose to ignore the laws she is directed to follow and took this house for her own personal reasons.

+1
Thank you.

[chris farley]

Quote from Mr. Dare

"where there is smoke there is fire Chris."

My beloved English grandmother would reply "Said the fox as he pi$$ed on the ice"

and that is what all of this is about pi$$ing on the ice.  Enough is enough all ready.

[strider]

No, Ms Farley, it is about this and how the Chief Of MCCD abuses the power she is entrusted with.

abuse of power:  the loss of 129 E 2nd st

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

How else does a small minority of people try and maintain control of a neighborhood that they moved to and didnt like the other residents?

this.  ye gods, this.  people having that 'move in and take over' attitude is why springfield feels less and less comfortable and welcoming to me each year.  the particular bit where i live has been largely immune, though, and i love it!

oh, and Chris, i'm dreadfully sorry your english grandmother didn't know the difference between smoke and steam.

[Springfielder]

One thing to remember is that when we had a MCCD chief that cared about how they did their job and tried to follow the law, MCCD would take a porch off and leave the rest of the structure.  It seems today that Ms. Scott sees an issue with a porch as an excuse to take the entire house.  This is not what it says to do in the ordinances.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that MCCD just circumvented the law and took a house in the Historic District of Springfield without just cause.

A perfect example of how MCCD once did the right thing, in fact, (1528 Walnut street.) it was a front porch roof that was being 'rebuilt' by an owner that clearly did not do it correctly and it was a safety risk of falling...MCCD demolished just the porch roof and the rest of the house was boarded per code. The house is stable, though the current owner has requested (and has been denied) demolition. So MCCD once did what was right, however over the past years, it has not

[JaxUnicorn]

Quote
Sometime prior to the SPAR D&R meeting, PSOS members looked at and came up with a plan to stabilize the remains of the front porch.  A member even offered to pay for the work but as we could not get in touch with the owner, we could not do it.
Unquote
Why was not this revelation discussed at the DRC (it is not the D & R) when the subject was brought up.  Why was it said to me in the street afterwards that "Code should brace the porch", it would have saved a great heartache, maybe even the house and I would not have been accused of having the house demolished.

Although others on this forum will not agree, I simply cannot believe that Chris Farley has any "demolition agenda" for Springfield homes.  Good gracious she's done a TON of research on the history of our historic ladies and is a tremendous source of historical information.  How could she possibly benefit by lobbying to demolish the very historic structures she seems to care so much about?

I am an active member of PSOS.  With that said, Chris contacting MCC about the home is no different than PSOS requesting that the city brace the front gable.  From what I read, there was no ill will.

Chris, I do have a few questions though: 

• HPC agendas are made public and are published prior to the monthly meeting.  Are the DRC meeting agendas made public so that anyone who may have an interest in a specific property knows it is being discussed?
• If so, where are they posted, or to whom are they sent?
• Are formal meeting minutes produced and published after each DRC meeting?
• If so, where are they posted, or to whom are they sent?
• Was a member of PSOS present at the DRC meeting when this house was discussed?

Bottomline is this....The loss of 129 East 2nd Street is a direct result of the City of Jacksonville's Municipal Code Compliance Division, spearheaded by Kimberly Scott, blatently ignoring their own ordinances that state they are to protect our historic fabric.  I cannot imagine that bracing the front gable would cost MORE than the demolition of the entire structure.  And now that the structure is gone, taxes will be less as well, reducing revenue for the City.

***** SAVE THE FREAKING HOUSES ALREADY!!!! *****