Blight committee ponders razing sound structures --

[IrvAdams]

Parts of this ordinance are geared towards circumventing the protections afforded the landmarks and historic districts. Code Compliance does not like those protections and hates it when they run up against them.  Part of our fight to save the houses has always been fighting against the creative ways Code comes up with the circumvent the system and the fact that the City supports Code no matter what.  Most recently, we won Mothballing and gave the city the loss of the easy use of Federal Funds.  Now they have this ordinance.  The fight continues.

We do have to ask ourselves why.  Why does Jacksonville, a growing city, want to behave towards it's urban core and the poorest among us like it is really Detroit?  Why take house after house and spend millions doing it when streets constantly flood and sink holes appear almost daily?  We need to find the profit they are looking for to understand this and then perhaps we can stop it. 

Theres the key word, in the last sentence: profit. Someone must have something to gain, monetarily or politically. As always, follow the money.

[JaxUnicorn]

The proposed changes are to two parts of the Ordinance:

Section 518.111 Definitions - this adds non-historic structures that have been without electric and water and vacant/boarded for 24 months to the "Unsafe building or Unsafe structure" list. Not really sure how the City is going to be able to get this passed as the structures are not unsafe. In fact, Code Enforcement will often board a truly unsafe structure (open/vacant) and charge the owner for it.

Section 518.205(b) currently states: "Additional time period extensions beyond the initial six month boarding of a building may be approved by the Special Magistrate or Municipal Code Enforcement Board."

It is being changed to state: "Any vacant, unoccupied and non-historic building that has been boarded up, and has no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months, shall be abated by the City in accordance with the demolition requirements set forth and described in Part 3 of this Chapter."

I'm not sure the new 518.205(b) verbiage is even needed as the City currently has the ability to abate anything it deems as an unsafe structure by following the current ordinance (if they choose to do that).

Section 518.205(e) - This is new sorta...currently this paragraph is not separated into its own 'section'. They've done that by adding section (e) and added that historic structures will not be abated (which could include boarding the City currently has the right to do) for 60 days. It currently does not say (and doesn't say in the new verbiage either) what happens after the time period has expired or what happens if the owner "responds".

[JaxUnicorn]

I think what needs to be focused on here is defining a structure as Unsafe if it has been "...boarded up and have no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months."

This is simply FALSE. Just because a structure has been boarded for 24 months and has no electricity/water does NOT mean it is UNSAFE.

[sheclown]

All one has had to do was follow any of the conversations we have had here for years and we know that the abatement activity is demolition.  The recent stuff from the blight committee said they wanted to be able to demolish structures after just 24 months now this ordinance will allow them to do that.  In addition, as we have heard from a city council member (Redman) that they now can't demo historic houses that need it, the purpose of this ordinance is to enable them to do exactly that.  And as usual, they get to decide what needs it.

[JaxUnicorn]

I agree sheclown.  And why it is important to focus on adding these types of structures to the 'unsafe structure' definition.  It is simply not true that a vacant/boarded home is unsafe. 

Please, Denise Lee and City Council, show me how a structurally sound vacant, secured, boarded structure is unsafe....

[Buforddawg]

Surely,  the city "could/should" sell the structurally sound houses for say a $1 to someone with the stipulation that they bring it back to "code" and the house is occupied for x number of years.  That would be a win for the city as the refurbished house with an occupant would provide much needed property tax revenue as opposed to EXPENSES from tearing down a completely sound house and losing income from lost property tax revenues.   I mean  really, this isn't rocket science! 

[IrvAdams]

Surely,  the city "could/should" sell the structurally sound houses for say a $1 to someone with the stipulation that they bring it back to "code" and the house is occupied for x number of years.  That would be a win for the city as the refurbished house with an occupant would provide much needed property tax revenue as opposed to EXPENSES from tearing down a completely sound house and losing income from lost property tax revenues.   I mean  really, this isn't rocket science! 

Sounds entirely logical, and other cities have been successful with similar programs, but that's not the way this thing reads. There's more going on here than the obvious tax flow or long-term income the City could gain from a productive, occupied structure. For some reason, they seem to want these buildings to fall into some level of abandonment, call it unrecoverable disrepair, and then have their way.

I'm baffled. Again, it would seem that it has to be monetary, or to curry favor, or to impress someone, right? Human nature only lists a finite number of motivators for what people do.

[sheclown]

Please go to this site and sign a petition against harming the historic district of Springfield with this ordinance:

http://www.change.org/petitions/mayor-alvin-brown-vote-against-amending-section-518-111-under-property-safety-and-nuisance-abatement?share_id=QWbpPlotQT&utm_campaign=share_button_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

We still need to address the neighborhoods of Durkeeville and East Jacksonville along with the other at-risk structures in the urban core.

We still need to address the loss of properties rights.

[sheclown]

Introduced last night. 

Do NOT be fooled.  This impacts historic structures.  It increases code's power over historic properties and removes the "unsafe" criteria. (Look to the end of the ordinance as quoted above).

And the rest of the urban core?  Could be GONE. 

2014-427
   

ORD-MC Amend Sec 518.111 (Definitions) to add New Subsec (M) to add as an Unsafe Structure those Non-Historic Bldgs that have been Boarded Up, Have No Active Water or Electric Svc for a Period Exceeding 24 Months; Amend Sec 518.205 (Boarding of Vacant Bldgs or Dwellings) to Require that such Bldgs Exceeding the 24 Month period shall be Abated by the City in Accordance with Demo Procedures of Chapt 518, Part 3. (Shaw) (Introduced by CM Crescimbeni, Lee & Jones)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 7/22/14


   

1. 6/24/2014 CO  Introduced: R,TEU,PHS

[Kay]

Do you know when the blight committee will meet next?

[strider]

This is past the blight committee at this point and on it's way through city council. 

[Debbie Thompson]

Introduced at City Council last night, I understand.  Plan on being at the next Council Meeting to speak out against this.

And sign the petition.  And share, share, share it.

[Kay]

This is past the blight committee at this point and on it's way through city council.

They could decide to withdraw their bill.

[strider]

Kay, go ahead and call Denise Lee and see what she says about that. It had been suggested through e-mails and more and yet, it got it's first reading.  They want this and they want to circumvent the historic protections. If you listens to the Blight Committee at all, you will also know that the mayors office wanted the time period shorter than 36 months and they got it to 2 years from Ms Lee.  The big questions should be why?  Why is the ability to demolish houses this easily so important?  Why is eliminating the affordable housing stock in the urban core so important? 

[IrvAdams]

Kay, go ahead and call Denise Lee and see what she says about that. It had been suggested through e-mails and more and yet, it got it's first reading.  They want this and they want to circumvent the historic protections. If you listens to the Blight Committee at all, you will also know that the mayors office wanted the time period shorter than 36 months and they got it to 2 years from Ms Lee.  The big questions should be why?  Why is the ability to demolish houses this easily so important?  Why is eliminating the affordable housing stock in the urban core so important? 

I agree, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no logical motivation whatsoever. The act of letting a building be properly mothballed and stand in peace for an indefinite period of time hurts no one, even the immediate neighbors. I would wager it doesn't hurt the adjacent property's resale value any more than tearing it down would.

If anyone has a clue on this, please let us know.