Code Enforcement Demolitions are set to begin (Blight initiative)

[JaxUnicorn]

There's a very long thread (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21389.0.html) about the Blight Committee's doings and the fact that City Council, after deferring it for 6 months, quickly passed Bill 2014-427 allowing demolitions just because a structure is vacant, boarded, unpaid code liens and has no power for 2 years.  And appears as though Municipal Code Compliance has wasted no time in starting the process of demolishing. 

As of this morning, bidding is now open to demolish 40 structures around Jacksonville.  Each property address is listed below.  The area of town is per the Procurement Bid document.  I've not personally seen any of these properties and I can't help but wonder if these are the first of the Blight Committee's razing.

Arlington - 3
North - 5
Northwest - 16
Southeast    - 2
Southwest - 2
Urban Core - 12

Procurement Bid No: CF-0082-15
Description: DEMO & SITE CLERANCE OF FORTY (40) PROPERTIES-PQ-DEMO-NO CHARGE
Link to actual document:  http://www2.coj.net/rfp/documents/CapitalImprovementBids/CF-0082-15.pdf

Arlington Properties:
8747 Eaton Avenue (RE#143958-0000), 1949 (homesteaded, demo main structure)
6033 Peeler Road South (RE# 119558-0000), 1958
5367 River Forest Drive (RE# 128416-0000), 1950

North Properties:
*6707 Cooke Street (RE# 026353-0000) 

• The City really screwed this one up!
• There is no 6000 block of Cooke, only 5000 block.
• Wrong street address; wrong RE#.
• The RE# provided references a completely different property at 5752 Oprey St.
• Based on my research, I believe the property address should be 5707 Cooke Street, RE# 026535-0000, 1956.

1011 Dorchester Street (RE# 032437-0000), 1928

*2858 Haddock Road (RE# 089195-0000)

• I think the City messed this one up too...
• 2858 Haddock Rd is RE# 044307-0000, not 089195-0000.
• 2858 Haddock Rd is NOT in Brooklyn per the Bid sheet.
• I believe the RE# is correct (089195-0000) but the address is incorrect.
• Property address for 089195-0000 is 1023 Dora Street, a retail store built in 1930.

7463 Laura Street (RE# 032837-0000), 1925
3811 Perry Street (RE# 086541-0000), 1926

After seeing the above issues, from this point on in the list, using the address, I pulled the RE# from the Property Appraiser's site, not the BID.

Northwest Properties:
1831 Alfen Street (RE# 049990-0000), 1962
914 Baker Avenue (RE# 077567-0000),1914
824 Eaverson Street (RE# 075746-0010), 1940
9505 Flechette Avenue (RE# 038875-0000), 1962
*5115 Hancock Road (RE# 060352-0000), 1949 (city had it listed as 6116 Hancook Road)
5104 Highway Avenue (RE# 060266-0000), 1947
1098 Huron Street (RE# 049557-0000), 1953 (shopping center?)
2318 Labelle Street (RE# 055988-0000), 1953
3553 Mecca Street (RE# 047569-0000), 1948
*8521 New Kings Road (RE# 039968-0010), 1947 (warehouse?) (city had it listed as 8621 New Kings Road)
*2561 Orion Street (RE# 055583-0000), 1926 (city had it listed as 2561 Orlon Street)
*3508 Phyllis Street (RE# 078931-0000), 1920 (city had it listed as 3608 Phyllis Street)
1319 Rushing Street (RE# 052783-0000), 1919
1349 Rushing Street (RE# 052790-0000), 1922
4950 Vermont Road (RE# 040708-0000), 1964 (homesteaded, demo accessory structure only)
2578 West 43rd Street (RE# 030440-0000), 1955

Southeast Properties:
8036 Hogan Road (RE# 137008-0010), 1946
2314 Johnson Avenue (RE# 147404-0000), 1957

Southwest Properties:
6042 Transylvania (RE# 097537-0000), 1944
6195 118th Street (RE# 097895-0000), 1943 (homesteaded, demo main structure)

Urban Core Properties:
3316 Canal Street North (RE# 084317-0000), 1960
*320 Chelsea Street (RE# 089281-0000), 1918
2517 Janette Street (RE# 045652-0010), 1959
2817 Market Street (RE# 044641-0000), 1916
1145 Palmetto Street (RE# 114178-0000), 1905
2146 Thelma Street (RE# 115504-0000), 1955
1648 Tyler Street (RE# 052659-0000), 1916
1211 West 9th Street (RE# 053500-0000), 1939
1064 East 10th Street (RE# 113986-0000), 1905
1145 West 24th Street (RE# 084541-0000), 1928
1503 East 24th Street (RE# 132117-0000), 1926
1511 West 30th Street (RE# 085211-0000), 1924

(Edited to add link to document, correct propety address info (indicated with an asterisk *) and to add RE# and Year Built.)

[sheclown]

Thanks Kim.  This is important information.  Some of these homes are 50 plus years. 

[thelakelander]

I don't have time to look up the entire list, so I cherry picked two addresses that I knew would fall within neighborhoods that are as old as Riverside and Springfield. Here are the two lots I looked up: 

3811 Perry Street - appears to be a structurally sound looking boarded up historic bungalow in Brentwood. Once it's gone, most of that particular block will be vacant lots.




2817 Market Street is in New Springfield and will be the first house demolished on that particular block.



For those who believe this ordinance provides some power to limit demolition of structures like this...structures that would be considered to be contributing if these neighborhoods were official historic districts...we're going to quickly find out one way or the other. 

[strider]

Interestingly enough, I just checked three addresses and all are more than 50 years old and so if Federal Funds, they will require the 106 review and  no matter what the funding, must be reviewed by the Historic Department folks.  First list of possible demolitions after the passage of the blight bill and already going after potentially Historic structures. I was hoping they were going to surprise me and do things at least half way right. And, yes, they can take whatever they want by calling it an emergency but tough to justify now that they are on a bid list.  At least if they wish to avoid a lawsuit over the demolitions.

1064 East 10th St  built 1905, 1319 Rushing St built 1919 and 7463 Laura St built 1925. Per Property Appraiser.

Lake got his post in first, so add two more to the over fifty list.

Yes, we are about to see how bad this Denise Lee driven law is, how bad this Mayoral Administration is and how bad MCCD is.

[thelakelander]

^Who needs federal money? We can find funding to pay for whatever we want to do if it's a priority.

Committee sets sights on $1.5M to fight blight

By David Chapman, Staff Writer

Funding for the city's initiative to eliminate blight in neighborhoods could have a dedicated source of funding if City Council enacts legislation outlined Wednesday by council member Bill Gulliford.
He's a member of the Special Ad Hoc Committee on Jacksonville's Neighborhood Blight and has been studying how the city could use about $1.5 million that's been sitting dormant in the Vacant Property Registry Fund.

"It's a revenue source we can count on year after year," Gulliford said.

Since 2010, holders of mortgages on foreclosed properties have been required to register the property with the city and pay a $150 fee. Community Champions, a Melbourne-based firm, collects the fee, retains 50 percent to administer the program and gives the other half to the city.

More than $2.5 million has been sent to the city since the program began. Funds are used to help homeowners make mortgage payments, mortgage counseling and to cover some of the city's cost for maintenance of vacant properties.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544838

[Bill Hoff]

How about using a chunk of that to address the real or imagined environmental issues that are holding up sale of the COJ owned vacant, blighted property at 9th & Main.

Just a thought.

[Timkin]

What can we do to stop this action?

I would be all over this action if the structures they are trying to take out ACTUALLY posed some sort of danger.  Just the couple in pictures appear to be nice houses, certainly in no danger of collapse or harm to neighbors.   Instead of paying to destroy them , why not put out an offer to GIVE the property to anyone who would take it on and bring it into compliance.

The demolition avenue seems an excellent method to keep demolition companies busy , and perhaps a kick back or 40 for giving them business.  Aside from that, no real benefit.

Putting a notice out would cost the City / Taxpayers a few dollars each property.  The demolitions would cost at least thousands per structure.   In a city that could utilize these dollars to do POSITIVE meaningful work with the money, destroying these places are absolutely the wrong avenue to pursue.

[JaxUnicorn]

Timkin, my thoughts exactly.  But in order to give them away, or even to demolish them (IMO) would require the City to OWN them first.  This whole idea of demolishing before they take ownership is beyond my comprehension.  And I think illegal.

[sheclown]

How about using a chunk of that to address the real or imagined environmental issues that are holding up sale of the COJ owned vacant, blighted property at 9th & Main.

Just a thought.

+1000

[Timkin]

Its all about the kickbacks  .  Just sayin...

[iloveionia]

Kickbacks or not it's just plain ignorance.
Jacksonville lacks progressiveness, lacks a respect for history, lacks a respect for sustainability, and people in powerful positions are thinking of only themselves and not the people they represent.
The folks who directly suffer here are those who lack the ability financially or educationally to speak against these actions.
We have to keep advocating for preservation and pressing hard against ignorance.
Section 106 reviews are on the side of preservation.
That's a starting direction.

[Timkin]

^ could not agree more, Ionia .   

[Light]

I searched property records, google maps/street view on the majority of these properties... MOST still look like they could be either saved OR are still occupied.  Two aren't even real addresses, they either show vacant lots/wooded areas or they're nonexistent.  I think I may be onto something in regards to Timkin's post but I need to delve into it a bit further.

[JaxUnicorn]

I searched property records, google maps/street view on the majority of these properties... MOST still look like they could be either saved OR are still occupied.  Two aren't even real addresses, they either show vacant lots/wooded areas or they're nonexistent.  I think I may be onto something in regards to Timkin's post but I need to delve into it a bit further.

Welcome Light!!  Nice first post...if you'll share the ones that are not real addresses I'll double check the list.  Hope I didn't mistype some of them (it is possible).  I have the procurement bid from the City I could email to you as well.

[sheclown]

So, an important question to city council candidates is "where do you stand on preservation?"