Ten Historic Springfield Demolitions

[BigNugget]

Oh my god I just realized you were a dude.  Your pic made me think you were just a rough looking chick that was drawn toward playing softball in your free time.  To be fair it is a very small fuzzy pic and the orange shirt threw me.

24,000 posts on this message board? That seems compulsive.

It's been enjoyable and enlightening. Time to get some shit done in the non-crazy/extremist real world. Keep up the good fight.

Good luck finding your way back to that world.  Im sure they miss you.

Last time I heard, the easiest traffic route ran down hodges.

[sheclown]

Big Nugget, now you've stepped in it. 

Stephen started forums in this city you twerp.

[movedsouth]

Not all houses can be saved. But demolishing a house makes absolutely sure it can't be saved. We have no shortage of empty lots in Springfield, so you can't say that the old houses are holding back any new development.  There are a couple new construction projects under way right now! I rather be called a crazy preservationist then a demolitionist.

If the city would have a genuine interest in the properties, and would actually want to hold property owners accountable, they could always foreclose on the fines they levy to get the house into the hands of an owner willing to rehab the houses. But instead, the city isn't even able to come to terms with the properties it owns (see 9th and Main) and they decay and look worse then many of the cited properties.

[sheclown]

Not all houses can be saved. But demolishing a house makes absolutely sure it can't be saved. We have no shortage of empty lots in Springfield, so you can't say that the old houses are holding back any new development.  There are a couple new construction projects under way right now! I rather be called a crazy preservationist then a demolitionist.

If the city would have a genuine interest in the properties, and would actually want to hold property owners accountable, they could always foreclose on the fines they levy to get the house into the hands of an owner willing to rehab the houses. But instead, the city isn't even able to come to terms with the properties it owns (see 9th and Main) and they decay and look worse then many of the cited properties.

Maybe we could cite the city owned properties, collect the money, and mothball deserving structures with the proceeds.

[Kaiser Soze]

I am just here to get some stalking tips. 

[sheclown]

I am just here to get some stalking tips. 

I helps if you are a psychopath.  If not, you have to work harder.

But that really is for another thread.

[strider]

I see your point and from the outside looking in the city does seem a little out of control. Possibly they should work with the community and not just act as an inflexible iron fist.  I get that and my inner "fight the man" hippie resonates with that message.  I agree - give people time for compliance work with them and not against them.  Totally simpatico with you on this.

However inner small govt capitalist doesn't think that it's the responsibility of the local government to maintain private property - historic or not. 

I also like you love old architecture.  With a few exceptions I generally don't like stuff build post WWII. But I don't think age alone makes great architecture.  While some of the most beautiful and significant architecture was built prior to 1929 just because it's old doesn't mean it's great. 

Finally; how many decently maintained buildings has the city razed? (aside from eminant domain stuff) I don't know the answer but if I were to guess I'd bed zero.

It is sad that to make your argument Big Nugget and I-10 East, you have to ignore what we say when we agree that not all old houses can be saved and that the owner is of course responsible for their houses.  Why can't you hear that the city is also responsible because of its own laws?  Why can't you hear that we are more concerned about why houses are taken down rather than losing a few that actually must come down?  Why is ugly a death sentence for these houses? Why can't you see that MCC is out of control, whether it is demolitions without just cause or how they treat the very people they are supposed to be serving? Why is it that us standing strong in our beliefs makes us unbending and wrong but you can ignore the facts and tell us we are the ones wrong? Why is it it seems you only hear what you want to hear?

Like I said, I'd rather have ugly hope than no hope at all.

There have been houses in MCC's system for years that started out with a leaky pipe. Or a hole in the roof.  The house is condemned, the owners, for whatever reason, we do not need to go into that discussion right now, did not repair it or couldn't.  After many inspections, after the house is vandalized and sits unoccupied for years, after several Special Masters hearings , after getting fined so much no one else wants it, the house gets demolished.  They put a lien on the house for the demolition.

Now look at the possibility, as it is actually allowed for in the codes and often found on the form letters MCC sends out, they simply repaired that hole in the roof or fixed that leaking pipe and then put a lien for that amount on the house. 

Which do you suppose is less expensive for the tax payers, the years of MCC involvement and the demolition lien that most often never gets paid or the repair?

The end result would be a house still in use, still on the tax rolls and one that could be sold to a new owner who might take better care of it. The city will never get the half million dollars of liens and fines some of these old houses have on them.  It would stand a good chance of getting back that repair lien though.  And it could have been getting the taxes paid all those years and people would be enjoying those houses instead of the house being abandoned.

Many houses have been demolished due to reckless policy and it is not the owner guilty of that, it is the city. 

Oh and many well maintained but unoccupied and uninhabitable homes have been demolished through the years.  Just because you can not live in it doesn't mean it is not maintained.  MCC just defines "safe" as being able to be inhabited (functioning water, electrical and heat) rather than what most people would consider just safe and so structurally sound homes are often demolished. It just depends upon what your definition of safe and maintained means.

[JaxUnicorn]

My hope and I would speculate that the non-activist majority feels the same way - is that the neighborhood continues to get better though renovations and re-use of the historic buildings in the area but also welcome and encourage the construction of new buildings that fit in with the fabric of the area.

The bottom-line here is that no one cannot renovate or re-use a historic building if it has been demolished.  Is the property owner responsible for maintenance of the property?  Absolutely!  And when the City of Jacksonville approved legislation to deem Springfield a historic district, the City at that point took on a SHARED responsibility to protect the structures.  That protection, per law, includes stabilization and/or maintenance when a property owner refuses to do so. 

Sec. 656.365. Legislative findings and intent.

The Council hereby finds and determines as follows:

(a)  Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 91-733-570 on January 28, 1992, the City Council established the Springfield Historic District. Since that date, various studies and plans, including the Neighborhood Action Plan, Historic Springfield District, October, 1992, and the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997, as revised August, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Council Secretary and in the Planning and Development Department, have recommended the implementation of a zoning district overlay to resolve zoning-related problems in the Springfield Historic District.

[MEGATRON]

Strider, the over-the-top condescending tone in your posts above are exactly why BigNugget's friends told him not to post on here.  Its obnoxious as hell.

and yet, you keep coming on back....

Notwithstanding a few of the preservationists on the site that refuse to recognize economic realities, there us tons of great content on MJ.

lol.  Thats hilarious.  Btw.  The only areas increasing in value are the historic preservationist areas. 

I always like your economic theories, megatron. They are so cute.

Have you ever thought about a graphic novel?

Or something on nickleodeon?

Property values on the rise in Springfield?

[Demosthenes]

The economic melt down was bad for a lot of individuals, but it was actually great for the neighborhood as a whole. Houses that had been flipped 10 times, having every dime squeezed out, but no work actually peformed got a reset, and are not on the market as an affordable forclosure. The neighborhood had become unaffordable before its time.

The reset has led to many houses being saved and renovated that might otherwise have been lost.

[strider]

The economic melt down was bad for a lot of individuals, but it was actually great for the neighborhood as a whole. Houses that had been flipped 10 times, having every dime squeezed out, but no work actually peformed got a reset, and are not on the market as an affordable forclosure. The neighborhood had become unaffordable before its time.

The reset has led to many houses being saved and renovated that might otherwise have been lost.

agree. 

[Debbie Thompson]

Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated.  The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary.   A travesty.  Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated.  The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary.   A travesty.  Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.

come on, Debbie--if we've learned anything from Big Nugget, we've learned that they don't use bulldozers--they use EXCAVATORS.  the all-caps seems to be important, too.

[JaxUnicorn]

Now if we can just keep MCCD and it's bulldozer-happy crew out of Springfield, the rest of the remaining historic houses will have a chance to also get renovated.  The last two were ABSOLUTELY not necessary.   A travesty.  Both structurally sound, and recent work done on them.

come on, Debbie--if we've learned anything from Big Nugget, we've learned that they don't use bulldozers--they use EXCAVATORS.  the all-caps seems to be important, too.

LOLOLOLOL
And I agree with Debbie's sentiment.

[John P]

Bedofe the dozer leaves lets hope the the burned green house at 3rd near Hubbard is taken down. I was told this supposed to be mothballed right? By the way what houses have been mothballed in springfield or other places because I cant find any that look like they are supposed to once it is finished.