Losing Springfield

[sheclown]

a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District.  So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.

True --

[strider]

a key point--An interesting part of this 106 review is that it must be done for any building that is 50 years old or older, not just ones already landmarked or within a Historic District.  So really all buildings have a sort of protection in place.

True --

Except from Kimberly Scott....so says the Office of General Counsel's Jason Teal (In HPC minutes telling staff and commissioners they can not question a demolition by Kimberly Scott). Gotta wonder what is really going on here ...

[m74reeves]

Now, the properties have liens for the demolitions on them.  $ 11,619.26 ($10,495.00 demo costs and $1,124.26 admin) on 129 E 2nd and $ 18, 203.60 ($16,995.00 demo costs and $1,208.60 admin) for 253 E 2nd ST.  One wonders what happens if those liens were to get paid?  Would Ms Scott have to pay back the federal government or would she just and more money in her budget?  Is it even proper to lien for those demolitions when federal funding was used for those demolitions especially when these demolitions where done against the will of the owners and a majority of the residents of the community?

Can anyone confirm that liens have actually been filed on these properties? I'm only seeing a "Notice of Pending Lien" for both of these. Perhaps I'm not looking where I should be...

[m74reeves]

OK...sorry see the liens on the tax collector's site...was looking for them in the public records. My question is what is the "admin" portion of these liens...cost of the engineering reports, recording fees, title search, what?

Is there any way to be able to see a copy of the actual lien?

[mbwright]

so, the city is using Federal funds to demolish, and then is also filing a lien?  getting paid twice.  Regarding protection, it is only as good as the enforcement, sort of like a restraining order.  No real physical protection.

[movedsouth]

The problem with the "protection" is that it isn't worth much if the city chooses to ignore it. You can sue all you want but the building is gone.

[strider]

D. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with the demolition of contributing buildings within an historic district or properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register until the procedures set forth in Stipulation D. are completed.

Source: Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008 12

1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation to the SHPO for each historic property proposed for demolition, to include the reason for demolition, a recent structural analysis, a summary of alternatives considered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation plan, and the views of the public.

2. If the SHPO determines that the proposed demolition is the most feasible alternative,the SHPO shall develop a Standard Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with Stipulation VI.

3. If the SHPO determines that the Standard Mitigation Measures do not apply, RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council and initiate the consultation process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)

I'm sorry, but this all seems pretty basic.  If you want to demolish a historic structure, or any structure that is at least 50 years old, using NSP funding you need to follow some pretty basic steps.  One would think that a department head that we tax payers pay over $100K a year would have enough basic reading comprehension skills that she could understand the above and be able to direct her people to follow it.  She does have a Masters degree, right?  We know she reads this forum and that she can put words together to form sentences.  This tells us she has to have read the 106 review information and must understand what it says.

So that leads us back to one basic premise.  Kimberly Scott has reason to want to totally ignore what is right and proper.  There are really only a few reasons people do that.  Ignorance, Money and Power.

I think we have addressed the ignorance.  Ms Scott is not some random high school drop out that ended up in a high level position of power.  She is reasonably well educated and so it appears we should be able to rule out simple ignorance.  She might be able to use that excuse if this was the first time she ever dealt with NSP funding, but since she got to spend that one million dollars from NSP1, not so much.

So why does Ms Scott refuse to follow the rules, the same ones probably a thousand other cites do every day? That leads us to why do two related demolition contractors (Micheal Lloyd Hauling and P&G Landclearing (Grady Lloyd)) get the vast majority of the contracts?  Do they always get the "emergencies"?  And how about the fact that a change order for one property that was not an emergency was for more than the original bid?  And yes, one of the two above did it.  If something that major was found, wouldn't it be better to wait and re-bid?  After all, it wasn't an emergency. Would that have not saved the city money? (remember, if someone can;t afford to fix a house, they probably won;t be paying that demo lien anytime soon either.) Or was it just to make sure a certain contractor got more? Just questions ...  at this point.

Have you ever had a meeting with Ms Scott about something the "city" thinks you did wrong?  I have.  She came to the meeting totally ill-prepared and without any of the information she should have had.  She was defensive about what her department did, she made facts up and she lied in front of a councilman. (it was only Dr Gaffney though...).  She told him I was not cooperating and would not allow her inspectors into our houses.  The truth was a bit different.  Had Ms Scott brought her files, it would have been seen that we had indeed allowed her inspector into our houses (several times, in fact), had allowed him to take pictures and we had been passed as perfectly legal by that same inspector.   I informed her of the facts and she immediately called me a liar.  The facts just didn't fit with Ms Scott's agenda; doing the bidding of SPAR Council (AKA SRG at the time), so she lied to try to make her case.  The issue is those records are public record and so those lies get exposed.  Did she do it because she was having her ego or wallet stroked?  Or is she simply that bad at her job?

The above example goes to another motive for ignoring the 106 review process.  Ms Scott's ego does not allow her to be wrong and if it is implied she did wrong, she gets first defensive and then is hurt almost to tears. This personality does not allow for being restrained by following the law.  At the same time, she sees that to be somehow special, she must insure everyone else follows those laws even if she doesn't have to.  This is why her department goes after everyone with such a vengeance.  I like to say that they get off on the misery of others, but it really isn't exactly that.  It is building up your ego at the expense of others. Talk to people who have had dealings with Ms Scott's department.  Even higher level city workers will tell you how bad her department is, but only in private.  In public, they fear for their jobs and so keep their mouths closed.

Ms Scott's influence goes through her department and effects not only Planning and Development's Historic Department but also the Building Inspection Department and even the Office of General Counsel.  She can get the Historic Planning Commission told to ignore the language of the law and not to ever review an emergency demolition, she can influence the permitting process for condemned properties, how the laws are interpreted and get people told to enforce her version even when it it obviously wrong. There is power at play here, from well above a department head that serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and that normally means money as well.

So, to whomever is reading this, from Jason teal, Kimberly Scott or Mayor Brown, know this.  This is important. This is real. The end game is to have a Municipal Code Compliance department that functions the way it was intended, not to satisfy the egos or wallets (if that's the case...) of a few.  One that helps people and therefore does indeed make for a better and safer Jacksonville.  A city that values it's older housing stock and actually follows it's own laws and does so with heart not ego.

And that is worth risking all those millions of federal funds going somewhere other than Jacksonville.  That would be a city I would be proud to live in.  Jacksonville now ...... not so much.

[sheclown]

PSOS did a public records request for this property along with 129 East 2nd Street.  Although it took awhile, we did get the records this week.  We were hoping to get some info on what MetroNorth was planning to do with the property.  Those records are there.

Additionally, there is this lovely nugget.





FWIW, I was that "attendee".

Additonally, for what it is worth, the city spent in excess of $10k to demolish.  Removing that front gable over the porch, or bracing it, would have been significantly less than $10k.

However, the flip disregard for historic properties shown by Crescimbeni, is quite alarming as well.

Hes an ass more than half the time.  He has funny comments though. Assy but funny.

Just to set the record straight, the $ 1,000.00 quoted to "brace the structure" was not for the entire structure but an amount to brace only the remains of the front porch gable.  Ms. Scott is either badly mistaken or being purposely misleading in her e-mail to a councilman. In the engineering report ordered by Ms Scott and paid for by us tax payers, the only thing that was considered an emergency and imminent threat by the professional engineering firm was the front porch gable, not the main house.  Bracing it at $ 1,000.00 seems a bit more sensible that paying the about $11,000.00 for the demolition and the potential lawsuit the city is now facing. 

The city is closing libraries, complaining about budget shortfalls and yet the Mayors office is allowing a paid employee make decisions that cost the city many times what they should and puts the city on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands in legal liabilities. Remember that while the funding for the actually demolition may have been from NSP funding, the resulting liabilities, put at above $200,000.00 each based on previous financial records from similar lawsuits, would be directly from us tax payers not any kind of federal funding.

And to think that Ms Scott and others are trying to say we are the ones out of touch with reality.

Recreation & Community Development Committee

Matters relating to recreation; public housing; economic development; affordable housing; farms; forestry; fish and game; parks; zoo; international trade and travel issues; Sister Cities program; Jacksonville Public Library; Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Department; Agriculture Department; Jacksonville Economic Development Commission; Jacksonville Housing Commission; Jacksonville Housing Authority; Community Services Department; ad valorem property tax exemptions; historic preservation; community revitalization; Waterways Commission; vessels for hire; Urban Services Districts; the Neighborhoods Department; education and schools; Duval County School Board; literacy issues; higher education institutions and issues; military bases; personnel and affairs; base realignment and closure (BRAC) issues; veterans' issues; and all related subjects.

Guess who's chair?

Committee Members
John R. Crescimbeni - Chair

[mbwright]

He needs to be removed from office, before he does more damage.  He obviously knows nothing about History, or Preservation.

[jaxbeachguy]

So where is the property owner in all of this?

From what I can gather, in a nice subdivision near the Shands Bridge.

[sheclown]

Emergency Demolition of Public Housing Structures and Section 106 Applicability

Question:
What Section 106 procedural and documentation requirements apply to emergency undertakings?

Answer:
Section 110(k) of the NHPA as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) states that no federal agency shall give assistance to an applicant who intends to intentionally create an adverse effect on historic properties. This is to prevent federal agencies from rewarding applicants for neglecting and/or mismanaging historic properties and thus undermining the goals of the NHPA. However, under the Section 106 regulations (see 36 CFR 800.12), "Emergency Situations"), there are specific times when emergency undertakings may occur with federal assistance. First, §800.12 applies only to undertakings that will be implemented within 30 days after a disaster or emergency has been formally declared by the appropriate authority (President, Tribal government, Governor, local government's chief executive officer or legislative body). Second, the types of emergency undertakings intended to be covered under §800.12 include, but are not limited to, immediate and essential responses to storms, floods, acts of war or terrorism, and other threats to life and property. Sec. 800.12 is not intended to cover cases of property-owner neglect or mismanagement.

When the agency official determines that §800.12 applies, the following procedural and documentation requirements apply:

    Notify the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, and other consulting parties of the properties to be affected prior to the undertaking and allow them an opportunity to comment within 7 days. Notification can be by telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter. Comments may be submitted likewise.

    If the agency official determines that circumstances do not permit 7 days for comment, the agency official must notify the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, and other consulting parties and invite any comments within the time available. Again, notification can be by telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter. Comments may be submitted likewise.

When a local government official serves as the agency official (for purposes of Section 106 compliance), the same procedural and documentation requirements as noted above apply. However, if the ACHP or SHPO/THPO objects to the proposed emergency undertaking within 7 days, the local government shall comply with §800.3 through 800.6.

If §800.12 does not apply to a proposed "emergency" undertaking, then the agency official must comply with §800.3 through 800.6.

Sec. 800.12 encourages agencies to develop procedures, Programmatic Agreements, and other agency alternatives to streamline the Section 106 compliance process for emergency undertakings.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/environment/review/qa/historicproperties

[iloveionia]

After lifting my chin off the floor all I could say was "WOW." 
How much more wrong can the use of NSP funds be in regards to demolitions in Springfield?!

[edjax]

Was watching the budget approval today and there was a discussion on funding for demolition of,properties.  They asked about a particular property in Springfield and Ms. Scott told council that indeed the city had demolished the structure.  And I have to say she said it with a smile and twinkle in her eye.   During the discussion councilman Lumb was trying to have it noted that the specific funds in question could not be used for demolition.  He stated he was inquiring as he had concerns that he has heard the city was destroying Springfield and something must be done about it. 

[iloveionia]

Thanks for sharing. I am appreciative that CMLumb is listening to Spfld preservationists.  It will happen.

[JaxUnicorn]

Was watching the budget approval today and there was a discussion on funding for demolition of,properties.  They asked about a particular property in Springfield and Ms. Scott told council that indeed the city had demolished the structure.  And I have to say she said it with a smile and twinkle in her eye.   During the discussion councilman Lumb was trying to have it noted that the specific funds in question could not be used for demolition.  He stated he was inquiring as he had concerns that he has heard the city was destroying Springfield and something must be done about it.

Hey edjax, can you tell us the approximate date/time of this discussion?  They started budget discussions Tuesday night and continued Wednesday afternoon.  I'd like to view that bit of video.  Thanks!!