Demolition debate mounting in Jacksonville City Hall as old buildings go down

[thelakelander]

But those alternatives aren’t cheap, said Code Compliance Division Chief Kimberly Scott.

Scott said by email she had heard suggestions that $1,000 might pay for some bracing, but answered those figures simply “are not realistic; this cost strongly indicates lack of structural engineering drawings, permits, construction, etc. required for proper bracing.”

If people try to improvise repairs, “makeshift bracing may further damage structures,” she added, saying it’s not the city’s place to repair houses anyway.

Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.

Lumb said he’s planning legislation that could help preservationists by creating “structured workouts” of fines that pile up on decrepit buildings.

Whatever happens to that measure, Lumb said the city could protect its historic areas better by just looking harder for choices short of demolition.

To some people, losing that history is a very big deal.
“Watching those two houses recently come down,” Pryor said, “I was almost brought to tears.”

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-09/story/demolition-debate-mounting-jacksonville-city-hall-old-buildings-go-down

[sheclown]

It is on the front page of the paper.

Thank you Steve Patterson for your interest in Springfield.

Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.

This is why we have laws on the books -- to settle the differences neighbors often have.  Not code's decision to decide which group to follow.

Law clearly states to protect its historic fabric.  And in this case, the neighborhood lost out on a federally funded renovation of close to a quarter mil.

We can't even save the historic fabric when we are paid to do so.

Wake up Jacksonville.

[JaxUnicorn]

It is on the front page of the paper.

Thank you Steve Patterson for your interest in Springfield.

Scott said some Springfield residents privately say they appreciate demolition of some homes, but stay quiet in public to avoid disputes with their neighbors.

This is why we have laws on the books -- to settle the differences neighbors often have.  Not code's decision to decide which group to follow.

Law clearly states to protect its historic fabric.  And in this case, the neighborhood lost out on a federally funded renovation of close to a quarter mil.

We can't even save the historic fabric when we are paid to do so.

Wake up Jacksonville.

Agree COMPLETELY!  And yes, thank you Steve Patterson for caring about our historic homes.  Jacksonville.....WAKE UP ALREADY!  The law is clear and Kim Scott does not seem to care to follow the law.

[suburbanite]

"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so? Fullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.

[thelakelander]

Other people's money is right.  There's something ethically wrong with forcing the demolition of private property when the property owner desires something different.  If the owner is struggling to shore up an existing structure, they sure as hell won't have the money to build from the ground up.  Visit some place like the Eastside of Detroit if you want to see what your inner city neighborhood will look like after years of this failed policy in the works.

[vicupstate]

The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.

How is building new completely from the ground up, cheaper than rehabbing something that has many elements already in place.? Not EVERY board has to be replaced in any rehab.  I suppose if a house (any house of any age) catches on fire, it must be completely demolished regardless of how much damage was done?

Question(not rhetorical):  How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield?  LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas?  THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable.

[sheclown]

There are literally hundreds of empty lots now in Springfield.

Growing weeds.

[sheclown]

Wasn't there a lawsuit filed and settled regarding a house on Laura Street a couple of years ago?  How much did that cost the city?

Other people's money, indeed.  How about other people's property?

[strider]

"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so? Fullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in. "Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.

Just a few things wrong with this post.  To start with, the guy had a $300,000 loan, not cash.  Meaning that as he did work, the funds were released,  The guy lost his job so I'm sure the balance of the funds were never distributed so it is a very safe bet that only a part of those funds were ever released and spent on the house.  Today the $250,000 number would have worked. Suburbanite, you are trying to fool us and not succeeding.

A huge issue is how people and therefore the historic housing stock is treated by Municipal Code Compliance. The inspectors treat everyone like some scum off the rim of a dirty tub.   They tell you to fix your house or else and then make it as difficult as they possibly can to do that. They insist you follow the rules but often do not themselves. Which is how lawsuits get filed and won against the city.  So when you start talking about other people's money, in this case, it is ours, the tax payers, and it is being wasted by settling lawsuits for taking houses down without following the rules.  How practical it that?

And that lot that is now ready for a new house?  It is so contaminated by liens and fines, it will sit for years until the city finally forgives those fines and liens for some new developer who mostly likely will let it sit longer anyway.  Maybe it gets cut and maybe it doesn't.  Not fun to live next to either.

As to Ms Pryor putting her money where her mouth is?  She  is currently working on getting several houses rehabbed.   And having to fight the hindering of MCC at every turn. 

[Tacachale]

[avs]

"Question(not rhetorical):  How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield?  LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas?  THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable."


There is one new construction home being built.  The rest is all resales/renovations.  Suburbanite makes no legitimate points.  Not one. 

Also, where the heck do you think, Suburbanite, that the city gets the money to demo the houses?? TAX money - its OUR money!  If you are upset about using "other people's money" then be upset about that.  It is cheaper to mothball the house than to demolish it.  And since its OUR money being used then the cheaper option ought to be how the city uses OUR money.

[Bill Hoff]

Question(not rhetorical):  How much new SF construction is happening now in Springfield?  LaVilla? Brooklyn?
How does that level of activity compare to the level of rehabbing in those same areas?  THAT would be a big indicator of what is more affordable.

In SPR there are 3 single family homes under construction and a multifamily development set to break ground in the Fall. Many more renovations underway.

Can't speak for the other areas.

[MEGATRON]

I mean, even myself and my six-grade brain (paraphrasing Stephen), realizes that tearing down houses in the hope that the site is developed in the future is silly if an inventory of undeveloped lots exists.

[JaxUnicorn]

"Pryor points out Springfield is one of two areas -- Riverside-Avondale is the other -- where the city designates historic districts with rules to protect original buildings as much as PRACTICAL." PRACTICAL is the operative word here folks. Was it practical for the city to shore up these properties? Then do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards, if no owner will do so?

Had the city shored up this property back when it first became a problem, then there would be little need to "do it again in a few years, and every few years afterwards".   Chapter 518.302(a)8, Notice to owner states the following:

Sec. 518.302(a). Notice to owner.

(a)Whenever the Chief finds any building or structure to be unsafe, he/she shall serve notice of such finding upon the owner, owner's agent, lessee, mortgagee and occupant as provided in this Section and shall order such unsafe building or structure, or portion thereof, to be made safe by repair or restoration or to be demolished and removed. The notice and order shall be written and shall include:

• The street address, if any, of the unsafe structure and a legal description of the property upon which the unsafe structure is located;
• A description of the building or structure or portion thereof deemed unsafe;
• A statement of the particulars in which the building or structure or portion thereof is unsafe;
• A reasonable time, to be not less than 30 days or the date set for a hearing whichever shall first occur, for compliance with the order;
• A statement that the city shall have the right to demolish the building or structure without further notice if the offending conditions are not remedied within the time required;
• That any repairs or demolition performed by the city shall cause a special assessment and lien to be placed for the total costs thereof and administrative fee.
• A statement that the owner shall be subject to penalties provided in this Chapter if the offending conditions are not remedied within the time required; and
• That the city, notwithstanding the above, reserves the right to proceed with an action foreclosing the lien placed against the property upon which the nuisance existed, to hold the owner of the, property personally liable for the cost of correcting the offending condition, or placing the lien on the tax rolls for collections purposes.
• A statement of the right of appeal as provided in this Chapter.

In this case, the City, once it has performed abatement action, has the authority to take the property from an owner who does not make the necessary repairs via foreclosing their lien.  They could then perhaps sell the property to someone who would repair/restore.

Fullwood thinks $250,000 could rehab that house? The present owner had $300,000 and couldn't finish it! Who's fooling who? Want to live next door to a POS like that? Sure you do. The lot is now vacant, ready for new affordable construction, that someone might actually want to live in.

I  agree with strider's comments posted earlier regarding this.  It was a loan.  I don't know of any bank that would hand someone $300,000 before any work had been done.  Those types of loans are more often based on draws - you are reimbursed for work completed.  Yes, it is now a vacant lot.  Think about it...if this had happened to you, would you maintain a property that had so many liens on it that it is unlikely to ever be sold or built upon?  If the City wanted to destroy the structure, then they may as well take the land and maintain it as well.

"Watching those two houses recently come down", Pryor said, "I was almost brought to tears." But not enough to put her money where her mouth is. Other people's money? Now that's different.

Suburbanite, how do you know that Ms. Pryor doesn't put her money where her mouth is?  On what are you basing that statement?  Did she tell you that personally?  Oh, wait....I get it.  You, like Ms. Kimberly Scott, have no idea what you are talking about.

[suburbanite]

Well, first my apologies to Ms. Pryor for the "money where her mouth is" comment. It may well be. As for the owner's rehab loan, whatever he spent, wasn't enough to get it even inhabitable. As for economics, there is no way a quater mil could be enough to save that property. It would be less expensive to start over, from the ground up, liens or not. Regarding other people's money, I don't think it should be spent 'shoring up' other people's property. That money is for infrastructure, not private property. You can't afford to maintain a derelict, dangerous, POS eyesore? Sell it for what it's really worth (what someone will actually pay for it), not for what you wish it's worth, or to recoup your costs. And certainly don't blame the city for enforcing the building codes. That is the property owner's fault, not the city's. Those codes are to protect other's safety and property values. Too many empty lots in Springfield? Is it because few people want to live there? Or are they all so heavily encumbered by city fines and liens? Riverside - Avondale doesn't seem to have that problem. I do not want to see historic structures demolished needlessly, but if the owners are going to let them rot, that is who you blame, not code enforcement. I believe in private property rights, but no right is absolute. This 2nd and Liberty property had a closing coming soon? It had been there 100 years, and was just days away from salvation? Wow. That's irony. Or BS. If these projects were economically sound, we'd be beating the developers away. Springfield can be renewed, but it's not going to be like Avondale or San Marco. It's needs to be affordable to buy, and keep. Historic money pits won't work. That's how I see it.