Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[sheclown]

I began asking questions last fall about the section 106 review process that cities must go through before alterations (and certainly demolitions) occur which involve federal funds and historic properties.

Does anyone know about this process?  Is it done by the state historic officer?

[JaxUnicorn]

How would we (or the city even) know whether federal funds were used?  And if federal funds were used and the city is questioned about it, can't they just say the money was not federal?

[strider]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Monica Landeros (904) 630-3426 landeros@coj.net

CITY CELEBRATES CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., March 29, 2013â€" The City of Jacksonville will join communities across the nation in celebrating National Community Development (NCD) Week, April 1 â€" 6. It is an annual campaign emphasizing the success, at the national and local level, of the contributions of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. CDBG is a federal formula entitlement grant awarded annually to the city through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

WHEN: Various Events from Monday, April 1 â€" Saturday, April 6
Details Below

WHERE: Various Locations Across Jacksonville
Details Below

NCD Week raises awareness of residents and elected officials to the benefits provided to the community through the CDBG programs. It also affords the opportunity to thank our congressional delegation for championing the program and to urge their support for continued funding.

Jacksonville residents have benefitted from many projects and services funded with federal grant dollars, including new streets and sidewalks, water and sewer lines, shelters for the homeless, new parks and housing repairs.

Since 1975, the City of Jacksonville has received more than $373 million in CDBG funds that have been used to develop and implement a wide-range of programs directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development and improving community services.

In fiscal year 2011-12 alone, CDBG funds, in combination with other public and private funding sources, provided for repairs to 81 homes, water and sewer line connection assistance to 69 households, demolition and clearance of 577 unsafe structures, support services to 281 small businesses, and public services that benefited more than 30,200 residents. The CDBG program provided funds for 19 public improvement projects during this period, including 10 projects completed and 9 others underway; and infrastructure improvements for Atlantic Beach Donner Park Improvements, public services for Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach.

The Housing and Community Development Division of the City’s Neighborhoods Department, administrators of CDBG funds, has planned eleven activities showcasing some of the critically needed programs and services provided through CDBG and to recognize the significant role these programs play in improving the quality of life for the citizens of Jacksonville.

The mayor says we are using federal funds to demolish unsafe structures.  Is there a separate pool of money only used for historic structures?  Or is this demo pool used for all?  If so, section 106 needs to be happening for any of this money.  As the mayor tells us, it is combined with other public and private funding and so, needs to be reviewed.

[m74reeves]

If the City is using HUD funds like CDBG or NSP for demolition, anything older than 50 years should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation officer for review/approval.  When I worked in another jurisdiction with these programs, we would not even attempt a demolition in an historic district. There may be some exceptions in the case of an emergency...but that would be like a declared natural disaster or the like. This is just a nugget of all the strings that are tied to doing demolitions with HUD funding. It would be very interesting to know if the City is using HUD funds or general funds to do this.

[sheclown]

reeves,

The only section 106 reviews which are done are for NSP money, and not that many that I can tell. 

The city says it is using "general funds" to demolish, but (as shown above) general funds seem to have federal money with it.  The DART program is funded by Jacksonville Journey, I believe, and I think there are federal funds going into the Jacksonville Journey.

I know that other cities do a section 106 review, as a matter of course, on all demolitions just to cover themselves, even with general funds being used -- because there is a co-mingling of funds.

[sheclown]

As far as emergencies go, I would imagine the federal government would like to see some evidence of an emergency situation.  In the case of east 2nd Street, the Historic Planning Commission requested code enforcement take actions which would save and stabilize the structure.  Code's response was immediate demolition.

After the fact, there has been little to no proof of any sort of due diligence to indicate a drastic measure was appropriate.

If general funds were used to demolish this historic structure, how can we be sure no CDBG funds, DART funds, or other federal money that may be in the general fund, were not used in this circumstance?

The agency official must
complete the section 106 process “prior
to the approval of the expenditure of
any Federal funds on
the undertaking or
prior to the issuance of any license.”
This does not prohibit agency official
from conducting or authorizing
nondestructive project planning
activities before completing compliance
with section 106, provided that such
actions do not res
trict the subsequent
consideration of alternatives to avoid,
minimize or mitigate the undertaking's
adverse effects on historic properties.
The agency official shall ensure that the
section 106 process is initiated early in
the undertaking's planning, so
that a
broad range of alternatives may be
considered during the planning process

http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf

[sheclown]

Demolition and/or nuisance abatement of property safety/maintenance code violations, which contribute to severe blighting and unsafe conditions within neighborhoods and provide potential haven for criminal activity. Municipal Code Compliance Division cites unsafe structures, abandoned/junk vehicles, residential/commercial minimum building standards violations, nuisance (overgrowth, trash, debris, etc.) conditions, and vacant/open structures, which require board-up.

If owners fail to address unsafe structure and/or nuisance issues, provided funding assists with demolition and site clearance activities to correct code violations. DART (Drug Abatement Response Team): MCCD partners with core agencies Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Building Inspections Division, in addition to Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Division, Animal Care and Control, J.E.A., Community Services, and the State Bureau of Alcohol, Beverages, ;amp; Tobacco to inspect properties where reported criminal activities occur. During DART 'hits' or projects, MCCD may deem a structure as unsafe and subsequently condemn it; if negligent owners fail to correct violations, the city may ultimately arrange for abatement via demolition of unsafe structures and/or heavy debris site clearance of nuisance conditions.

http://www.coj.net/departments/the-jacksonville-journey/2011---2012-funded-programs-%281%29/dart.aspx

[m74reeves]

The permission to Demo because of an EMERGENCY under HUD rules (not COJ) would mean some kind of federally or state declared disaster, terrorist act, etc. And even in that situation, you still would have to be in contact with the SHPO. It would just shorten the review time, that's all.

One of the main uses of CDBG funds is to "eliminate slum/blight," which is why cities/counties often use it for demolition projects. However, you still have to take care of all the usual strings which are attached to government money including environmental review for projects, and the Section 106, which in Florida means having the projected reviewed by the SHPO for buildings over than 50 years old. The SHPO wants to know if the project is in a historic district.

I was trying to view the City's CAPER reports last night, which should show annually how CDBG money is spent, but I could not access any of the files. They seem to be gone from the City website?

I am bothered by how the city seems to equate demolition with crime reduction. On the City DART page, it says "working with landlords/property owners..." hmmm. not in this case. This is a slippery slope, especially in a historic area.

The City needs to give owners and opportunity to access and fix their properties. Not throw them out on the street, with no concrete idea of what needs fixing.  Displacing people b/c of demolitions (I'm thinking the SPR plastics now) is just bad public policy.

I would definitely pursue how these demos are funded, but it sounds like is only just one small part of the problem with the interaction between the City and Springfield neighborhood groups and owners. I may have missed something in your prior posts...I'm new to the area, but would love a chance to talk and support preservation efforts in Springfield.

[sheclown]

Reeves,  I'm so glad you are part of this discussion and have joined PSOS. 

A small snap shot of background -- that ten years ago, a developer from Atlanta came to Springfield to "save it from itself."  A part of this "salvation plan" was to demolish the blight and build new.  He came with pockets full of money which he spilled on the local organization SPAR (to the tune of 100k a year or more), the district councilman, and who knows who else.  He put his people on the code enforcement board and was instrumental in getting policy and ordinance changes to help demolish structures.  During the years that followed, Springfield lost on an average of one a month.  As it stands right now, Springfield has lost over 530 structures or close to 1/3 of fabric -- and all of this occurred after it was declared a historic district.

And, it took too long for the average Joe to figure out the houses were being destroyed-- even longer to figure out it was the neighborhood which was doing it.

So now we are battling past policies and harmful ordinances which do nothing to help us (with the exception of the mothballing ordinance).

PSOS needs help.  And we need help in knowing what the right questions are.  We, intuitively, know that this isn't kosher, something is desperately wrong.  What we need help in determining is...what's the question?  And where can help come from?  Obviously it isn't COJ.  The historic planning department is awesome, the historic planning commission is working for condemned structures, but they are small potatoes in the city.

Can we get help from the federal government?  Since we are spending their money to demolish historic buildings (can't believe it isn't in the general fund), can they help us stop this?

[m74reeves]

IF they are using federal funds for the demolition, then there should have been some sort of review by the state historic review office. if they are using general revenue funds for the demo, then ?

I'm still letting sheclown's post perculate. definitely a procedure was not followed, even if it's just the city's own procedure.

a side note, HUD NSP funds are supposed to be specifically targeting areas with high #s of foreclosures and other at risk properties. seems like NSP3 was supposed to be focused in springfield? how is the city spending this?

[m74reeves]

My initial thoughts about the questions we should be asking:
1. How are these demolitions being funded in Springfield? If any federal funds are being used, then there should be follow up questions as well regarding how/if Section 106 reviews are being performed.
2. Should we expect a rash of demolitions on old cases such as this one? Is this the new directive...to just demolish anything with an open code case # that has not seen any progress?
3. What exactly are procedures regarding vacant properties and demolitions? This is HUGE to me, b/c it does not seem consistent or very conducive to getting property owners to make repairs/stablize home. It's unpredictable and vague and subjective and hard to understand, so how can the average property owner that is trying to get the property in compliance accomplish this let along SPAR or Preservation SOS or a potential developer for that matter.
4. If the City is claiming to promote community redevelopment, how does this aid in that? Many of these properties will have years' worth of fines from the City accumulating + the lien on the property for the demoltion  + possibly back taxes owed + in some cases, there is a mortgage against the property as well! That is a lot of $ levied against the property before a single person can put money into repairs. It further deters investment in these properties.
5. And to follow that thought, if the City is being a good steward of funding, whether federal or general funds, is it prudent to spend money demolishing a house that has some sort of mortgage against it already? Once they demolish one of these properties, it seems like it's a sure thing that the properties will go into foreclosure. Generally mortgages have clauses that require the owner to keep the property in good condition, not permit alteration (including demo) of improvements w/o permission, prohibit further liens to be placed against the property, etc.  Any of these could constitute a mortgage default and let mortgagor start LIS pendens proceedings. If the property is foreclosed, what are the chances the City will ever recover the payback of its liens/fines? Zero, I'd say.

[strider]

The condemned properties in Springfield are indeed poisoned with fines.  The house which was donated to PSOS on Walnut Court had a rolling fine of $250 per day.  These rolling fines had accumulated for years until it had reached well over 400,000 and had spilled over onto everything that the property owner owns.  Even with transferring the property to us, he still has that hanging over his head.

The Bostwick building is being fined $100 a day (I believe). 

Mothballing does stop the fines from accumulating, but does nothing to remove them.

Bringing a house to certificate of occupancy does help and one can negotiate with the city to remove the fines.  But this is highly subjective and arbitrary.   It also prevents banks from lending money on a house with rolling fines.

[sheclown]

a thread about the house on Walnut Court

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9603.0.html

[JaxUnicorn]

Wow...it is hard to believe that Walnut Court happened almost 3 years ago!

[sheclown]

I believe that the city feels about Springfield much as it does about downtown.  It is fond of it, a bit embarrassed by it, wishes it could do something easy, gets frustrated when it takes too much work, then builds a resentment against it, blaming it for its own problems.

If preservation were truly valued in Jacksonville, Springfield and downtown would be vibrant.  Instead, easy answers like the kind that fast-talking developers give seduce the city and leave us vacant and poor.