Another Historic Downtown Demolition In The Works?

[vicupstate]

Yes, it is a nice building, etc., but it is not YOUR building. The building does NOT belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the owner. The owner, not the neighborhood, pays taxes on that building. Thankfully, you folks weren't around 100 years ago because no new buildings would have been allowed because you never want to let one be torn down. You complain about suburban sprawl, but you insist on putting your spin on what property owners can do with their own property.  A rooming house. Be still my heart. Stop being socialists and projecting your demands on what other people own. This is nothing but destruction of property owners' rights in the name of "preservation."

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Actually, preserving historic structures and allowing them to be rehabbed has frequently reversed the 'ghetto' conditions.  Tearing down buildings over a vast area for nothing more than empty lots and surface parking certainly has not. JAX being the prime example of that not working.

Nobody is stopping anyone from maintaining or rehabbing a property.  In fact everyone wins when a property owner is responsible and maintains the property.  Unfortunately, large areas of Jacksonville are owned by slum lords that do not care.  These slum lords push their agenda on message boards such as this one and they hide behind politicians that they fund. 

Take responsibility for your property or sell.  It's not that complicated.

Preservationists and slumlords are not in cahoots to save derelict properties. Just the opposite. Preservationists want the properties maintained and slumlords are not interested in maintaining their properties.

[NaldoAveKnight]

+1  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  It's mind blowing how the preservation folks either want other people (city and tax payers) to pay for their renovations through facade grants or want an area to remain ghetto so they can limp along with their crummy properties and pay low taxes while collecting high rents.  Follow the money...

Follow the money?? The money is definitely not with preservationists...

Some of these so-called preservationists sound like randoms living out in the suburbs/southside/beaches/St Augustine.  Sorry if this group is offended by honest words coming from hard experience living in hard areas.  However, if they have skin in the game, buying old properties, living in the area, and fixing them up then they are walking the walk. 

I personally know several people that own 20+ homes in the urban core/springfield/northside.  None of them live in the areas they own homes.  If property owners lived in the homes or at most owned a few well managed properties then all of these blight issues would go away.

Unfortunately, the reality is there's a group of slum lords that profit from the low tax base of rough areas.  These slum lords do the minimum amount to get by and rent to hard luck folks that scrape by.  These tenants are not empowered to demand better and the area remains beat down and rough.  If the area improves then these slum lords have to spend money on the properties to avoid the ire of city codes enforcement and money on increase of taxes.  Meanwhile the tenants are making the same amount of money and can not pay more, leaving the slum lords in a losing position.  Once again, follow the money...

[ProjectMaximus]

Some of these so-called preservationists sound like randoms living out in the suburbs/southside/beaches/St Augustine.  Sorry if this group is offended by honest words coming from hard experience living in hard areas.  However, if they have skin in the game, buying old properties, living in the area, and fixing them up then they are walking the walk. 

I personally know several people that own 20+ homes in the urban core/springfield/northside.  None of them live in the areas they own homes.  If property owners lived in the homes or at most owned a few well managed properties then all of these blight issues would go away.

Unfortunately, the reality is there's a group of slum lords that profit from the low tax base of rough areas.  These slum lords do the minimum amount to get by and rent to hard luck folks that scrape by.  These tenants are not empowered to demand better and the area remains beat down and rough.  If the area improves then these slum lords have to spend money on the properties to avoid the ire of city codes enforcement and money on increase of taxes.  Meanwhile the tenants are making the same amount of money and can not pay more, leaving the slum lords in a losing position.  Once again, follow the money...

It's hard for me to follow your thought process. You're against slum lords keeping an area rough, yet you originally jumped into this thread by supporting the argument that owners should be able to do whatever they want with their property??

I'm also trying to understand why you'd prefer a dirt lot to a rehabbed building. That would be the anti-preservation stance in this scenario.

[Debbie Thompson]

Naldo Knight, leave Springfield out of your comments, please. :-)  We live in Springfield, and I personally know more than several people who both live in Springfield, and also own several rental properties in Springfield.  My son and I included.  We/they are not slumlords. Everyone I know in Springfield with any money they can invest in real estate, are investing in Springfield.  (Because it's the coolest, best neighborhood in Jacksonville, and because we care about what happens here.)  Houses are being rehabbed like crazy.  Dumpsters are everywhere in Springfield as people buy and rehab homes. Inventory in Springfield is so low local real estate agents are asking neighbors if they have any houses to sell because the have customers looking for a Springfield home, and so few are for sale. 

[NaldoAveKnight]

Naldo Knight, leave Springfield out of your comments, please. :-)  We live in Springfield, and I personally know more than several people who both live in Springfield, and also own several rental properties in Springfield.  My son and I included.  We/they are not slumlords. Everyone I know in Springfield with any money they can invest in real estate, are investing in Springfield.  (Because it's the coolest, best neighborhood in Jacksonville, and because we care about what happens here.)  Houses are being rehabbed like crazy.  Dumpsters are everywhere in Springfield as people buy and rehab homes. Inventory in Springfield is so low local real estate agents are asking neighbors if they have any houses to sell because the have customers looking for a Springfield home, and so few are for sale.

That's great news.  If this is true revitalization with small investors acting responsibly then it could truly be the turning point Springfield deserves.  It is a cool neighborhood with lots of cool properties.  Orlando or Tampa would love to have a historical neighborhood like Springfield.  My point is that there have been headwinds keeping a lot of neighborhoods in Jax down.  It's better to have an honest discussion, identify the problems, and move forward. 

Lamenting the destruction of an older property with some cool architectural elements is not enough.  We need to look into why the property got into a state of disrepair and why the owner wants to tear it down. 

[thelakelander]

In this case, these reasons have been established. The owner wanted to tear the building down because the church across the street wants to buy the property for a surface parking lot.

[JaxUnicorn]

Here is the direct link in case the Facebook link is giving you a hard time. 
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/CouncilVideo1_5-12-15.wmv

I learn how to better deal with city council members every time I speak in front of them.  Even though some may attempt to belittle me or make me out to be an idiot, I will not stop fighting for preservation.  SAVE THE HOUSES!

After watching the video, I don't think you should worry about being made out to be an idiot, the council looks to be earning that label for themselves. Your patience is admirable.

agreed.

Thanks.  I appreciate the kind words and support.  I will be back in front of some of the same city council folks this evening at the LUZ Committee meeting.  Like I said, every time I learn something... 

[JaxUnicorn]

Tuesday, June 2nd at 5:00 pm the Land, Use & Zoning Committee will once again hear citizen comments on Landmarking Elena Flats.  If you are able to attend, it would be great to see folks present in support of this Bill.  If you cannot attend, sending an email to City Councilmembers would work too.  Thank you!

[JaxUnicorn]

Bill 2015-170 to Landmark Elena Flats at 122 East Duval Street passed the June 2, 2015 LUZ committee by a vote of 5-2. 
The bill was passed by City Council last night by a vote of 15-2 with Remdan and Shellenberg voting NO and Daniels and Joost casting no vote (absent).

WAY TO GO JACKSONVILLE!