Blight committee ponders razing sound structures --

[Gunnar]

What I still don't get is why demolish a building if is does not pose a danger to anyone (by collapsing) and when no one wants to build a new one in its place ? Doesn't matter if it's in DT, Springfield, wherever..

Plus, having an area with lots of overgrown lots will not make it more attractive to investors....pure idiocy, really.

[thelakelander]

This is a thread that has the revamped bill posted.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,22328.msg401584.html#msg401584

While the original bill made a point of insuring they could just as easily take historic structures as any other, at least this version keeps the few protections this city allows it's historic building stock to remain in tack.

What is ironic is that this bill uses definitions that will primarily apply and do damage to the very less cared about neighborhoods that brings millions of Federal dollars to Jacksonville every single year. Those millions are really supposed to be used to revitalize those neighborhoods not mow them down. What is truly sad is that these communities probably could be saved and revitalized for the same money if not even less than the city will spent to demolish them.

This bill also gives the option of taking and donating the property to both non-profits and for profit entities so that that get rehabbed and put back to use rather than just demolition.  However, regardless of the rhetoric from even good council members like Lori Boyer, as long as deals have been  made and people like Kimberly Scott and Denise Lee have their way, demolition will be the far preferred and used method of dealing with what they have determined to be blight.

Thanks for the link. Looking at JaxUnicorn's post:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

So even though these places are +100 years old and structurally sound, because they are vacant and don't meet the full requirements set forth in this particular locally created definition of "historic structure", they can be torn down with ease?







If so, we can put another nail in the coffin of economic revitalization potential of older unprotected Northside neighborhoods that don't have strong political representation.

[Bill Hoff]

Wasn't there language that provides protection for any structure overy 50 years old, in a historic district or not?

[I-10east]

We are living in a generation where many people leases (cars, apts etc). Many of these old school homes (some with very small bedrooms etc) are in downtrodden lower income black neighborhoods. There are many instances were a deceased grandparent owned a home PAID OFF, passed it down to the kids and the were unable to maintain very cheap property taxes, then the home gets foreclosed; Someone may buy it for dirt cheap, then again the home may not be occupied ever again. I saw this first hand.

Some of these homes are took over by shady land(slum)lords posing as 'real estate investors'. They lease these homes out, and they are in bad condition, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, literally air cracks between the window sills etc. The use of kerosene heaters to stay warm etc. Most of the time, what inevitably happens is an unsustainable revolving door of tenants.  I lived in a house like this on Nixon St in the North Riverside. Lake said this..

Unfortunately, there's still no realistic plan in place for actual redevelopment and economic revitalization neighborhoods.

...and that's the reality that many don't wanna face. This issue happens in poor areas all over the country. Of course not all of these older homes are a lost cause. There are cases that old razed areas that are redeveloped, like Habijax throughout the city, and recently on the Eastside with the CB Dailey Villas.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=23312.0

[Kay]

Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

[strider]

Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

[JaxUnicorn]

Strider is correct.  The bill does NOT protect any structure over 50 years of age.

From my post linked to earlier in this thread:

After my Ramifications and Alternatives comments is a direct copy/paste from the substitute bill 2014-427, with all revisions noted (underlined for additions, strikethroughs for deletions).  I still do not understand how tearing down structurally sound buildlings just because they are vacant, boarded, have unpaid Code fines, and have no electricity for more than 24 months helps the city.

Ramifications of tearing down structurally sound buildings:

• The City must find the funds to pay for the demolition - very costly - and risk lawsuits.
• More often than not, taxes are paid via Tax Certificate sales. By removing the structure from a parcel, the City reduces the value of the property on which taxes are paid (less money for City/County).
• The City is left with a vacant lot with even MORE liens tied to the property that the owner is even less likely to maintain.
• The City must spend more money to abate the property when it becomes overgrown because the owner will not maintain it (more land to take care of too now that the structure is gone).
• The additional demolition lien makes it even harder for someone to sell the property if they wanted to do so.
• We lose homes that could potentially be used to house the homeless or low income persons.
• We unnecessarily add waste to our landfills.
• The cost to build new is WAY more than the cost to renovate an existing structure.

Alternatives:

• Utilize funds marked for demolition to make primary repairs to the property (stop water infiltration (roof) and the structure will stand for years).
• Place a lien on the property for the repairs (or maybe it can be added to the property taxes as an improvement?).
• Foreclose on the existing or the new repair lien and donate the property to a non-profit to provide housing.
• I am sure there are others...what suggestions do you have?

The criteria for demolishing a structure in this new manner is defined in Chapter 518.111, Part 1, SubPart B (Definitions), Section (m) of the definition of Unsafe.  All of the following must be true to demolish under this new law:

• Must be non-historic
• Must be blighted (they re-vamped what defines a structure as blighted as well)
• Must be vacant or unoccupied, or if occupied, occupied by transient persons
• Must be boarded up
• Must have unpaid code enforcement, nuisance, or demolition liens
• Must have had no active water or electric service for a time period that exceeds 24 months

Goodbye Eastside, Durkeeville, Brentwood, Brooklyn, New Town, Mixon Town, LongBranch, Fairfield, Tallyrand, Phoenix, MidTown and all the other neighborhoods with a low socio-economic problem.  Tearing down these structures is NOT the way to rebuild communities!!!  AND it totally wastes my taxpayer dollars!

Something else to consider here is the COJ just defined a blighted area as one with a higher number of emergency medical service calls than the rest of the city.  What?!?!?!? 

[Noone]

Must be non historic. And number 6
Heard there are about 9000 that fall into this category. That must explain all the demos happening in Dist. 4

[thelakelander]

Goodbye Eastside, Durkeeville, Brentwood, Brooklyn, New Town, Mixon Town, LongBranch, Fairfield, Tallyrand, Phoenix, MidTown and all the other neighborhoods with a low socio-economic problem.  Tearing down these structures is NOT the way to rebuild communities!!!  AND it totally wastes my taxpayer dollars!

Yes, when I read the legislation, that was my thought. It's too bad. These neighborhoods still have most of their historic integrity in place because they have been long ignored by COJ. We can look at DT Jax and LaVilla as great examples of what happens when bad policies are put into place. I see no reason to expect anything different in these historic "but not officially historic under the listed definitions" neighborhoods.


Non-historic ready to be demolished blight in New Springfield.


Getting rid of this at your expense should help ease crime and bring economic prosperity to Brentwood.

[Kay]

Any building 50 years or older will be reviewed by JHPC to determine if it should be considered historic.  If it is determined to be so then it will not be demolished.  It does not apply to only to historic districts or current landmarks.

I fear that is not exactly the case:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File (which is why Elena Flats is going before the commission)  or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

I suspect that last part will only work if they must do a 106 review to use of Federal Funds. That does not necessarily stop the demolition.  And any structure can be taken as an emergency with the paperwork filed after the fact.  Even designated Historic ones.

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.
How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

[thelakelander]

^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

[strider]

or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

How this part is supposed to work is that if someone wanted to demolish it, JHPC would review, and if they determine it is "historic", then it is not supposed to be demolished.  That was the intent of Jones, Boyer and others on the committee.  You also could advocate to get money to historic planning staff to survey more neighborhoods. 

Kay, as it took all but an act of congress to get MCCD to do a 106 review, I fail to see this being enforced by them in any way.  Plus, the " as determined by" only works if they get notified before the structure is taken.  The precedent has been set that the MCCD chief can call whatever they feel like an emergency and get away with it.  Even Historic designated structures. I also fear hearing "it was not on any list..." and to go with the last comment, yes a survey of what is and what is not eligible is what may be needed but until there is one....

^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

As much as that may be what is needed, the funding will probably never get made available, at least under current leadership. I imagine even if a survey was done, how do you find the funding to get the designation and get the additional staff needed to handle more districts? It ends up being a pretty expensive proposition. At least one attempt at a new district was also voted down by the residents recently.  And I think in the last few years, the Historic department has had it's head on the budget cut block more than once.

We need better leadership. Under our current leadership, the few that care can't really stop the demolition train heading the older communities' way.

[Kay]

^Do you mean lobby the council to provide more money to the planning department's annual budget in order to have staff survey....thus hopefully creating more official historic districts within the city?

Yes, the first step is surveying the properties.  Staff doesn't have time so would need money for consultant to do it or more staff.
I think there are more areas surveyed than we are aware of.  A survey determines whether it is historic or not.  Of course, then getting a district designated requires a majority vote of the property owners.  Not sure if Council can do it without a vote of property owners.

[Kay]

I hear you Joe and share your concern.  Hoping the legislation will help.  We'll need to be vigilant.  Perhaps we ask Jones or Boyer
how they see it working and if it needs more clarity.

[Kay]

The state can determine whether to designate an area a national register district and that does not need Council or property owner approval.