Are boarding houses really the problem?

[Karl_Pilkington]

Just to prove that I actual read this forum before I post:

Karl, you need to go back to school if you are doing the math and coming up that a rooming house is a great way to get rich.

where did I say that oh great one?  I know its late but perhaps its time to get off the pipe, you're starting to hallucinate.

you have to admit though that compared to your "tenants" you are rich, so being a rooming house magnate is definitely working for you, just embrace it. 

[fatcat]

I am just curious how does the tax thing work with boarding houses. I know the landlord/property manager collects sales tax for short term rental.  What about food served? Are they taxed separately or together? Is boarding house in the same category as b&b or hotel with restaurant?

[strider]

Rooming houses are licensed by the state as rooming houses.  The tax thing was addressed pretty well during the previous issue some are talking about and as nothing happened, I would assume everything is being done legally. There really aren't any regular boarding houses left in Springfield.

One thing that was just brought up to me was the practise of "redlining".  It is a term I have heard before and is a large reason Sprinfield stayed down as long as it did.  It has to do with the issues many found trying to buy here in the late 70's and the 80's. It is a practise that is linked to the federal government and often to mostly black, poor inner city areas. Wekipedia has a pretty good definition of it.

Why are the facilities here in the urban core and not on , say, the Southside?  Why don’t these facilities move and build elsewhere?  Is there a valid reason they are here and remain here?  Are there in fact any facilities in the other areas of town and are they successful? Would it make more sense to work with the various facilities to insure that they are more of a positive to the community rather than just trying to or at least hoping to eliminate them?

The above is from my original post.  We have discussed the reasons an area like Springfield fell into decline.  Perhaps it is time to talk about the above.  Who knows what facilities to help the poor and the homeless are located in places other than downtown?

[strider]

Movedsouth, no, I'm not.  I am saying redlining was part of this list: 

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs.
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core
3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable.
4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.
5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.
6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds.
7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes.
8 ) lack of functional infra-structure. 
9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values.

We could call redlining number 10.  Just one of the reasons a community like Springfield fell into decline.  And something that makes turning these communities around that much more difficult.  Which is what we are really talking about. Someone else brought up the tax thing. It isn't really related. 

Since no one else has addressed it ...  there are many facilities that deal with the poor and homeless in other areas of Jacksonville.  There is a very large facility out on Beach. Anyone know anything about it?

[fsu813]

To the OP,

Boarding houses are not "the" problem, they are one of the problems. And adding more does not increase the home values, safety, or quality of life for the neighborhood. No one can argue that.

And that's the reason why virtually no one that does NOT have a vested interest in boarding houses want them down their street, next door, down a few blocks, etc.

Strider & sheclown try to paint this rosy, Pollyanish-fairy tale of yesteryear.......well, guess what....it's not that way any more. Hasn't been for some time. And dare I say that if you weren't making money off boarding houses, but lived next you one, you wouldn't like it either.

Throw in the fact that this 1 square mile has more than any other part of the largest city in America, and you got yourself an issue. Especially when the suggestion of NEW a boarding house comes up, especially in an area that's in the midst of a huge restoration.

What Joe said is indisputable. The nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

No new boarding houses are welcome, end of story, no matter what kind of spin Strider & sheclown put on it. The ones that are already established will be around for a while, perhaps not.

[fatcat]

Moved South.  Again.  Please read the thread so that it doesnt have to be explained, all special like, again for you.

btw.  You do know that a short while ago, people who didnt own property (along with women and other minorities apparently) were granted 'citizenship'?

Many of them are citizens to this day, including the 99% middle class people currently buying their homes on a payment schedule from banks in the Springfield area.  Which is you know....a kind of progress don't you think?

I think its just grand that we allow people who won't actually own a home for another twenty years or so (and I hear that some people have thirty years on their mortgages)  vote and participate in the society as though they were actual landowning citizens.  Don't you?

Mr. Dare, is your post a personal attack or you are exempt ?
BTW, to make progress is to make things better, which means change the way we do things. Just because something was justified yesteryear does not make it justified today.

[strider]

What Joe said is indisputable. The nature/judgment/issues of those that have to live in boarding houses generally make them less quality of a neighbor, if not a net negative, most of the time. Since this is a fact, they do also decrease the property values of the homes around them and .....i'd be surprised if anyone challenges this........contribute more to the drug, prostitution, and cash-crimes than help prevent them.

This deserves another quoting since the real facts are being ignored:

BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. One more time, BEING NEAR POOR PEOPLE REDUCES THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE

While there is a small amount of truth in this, it is also why many of the newer residents of say, Springfield, came here.  Low realestate prices equals good values.  The Metro Edge study says 44% at under 15K per year.  And values in Springfield went up substantially even though they were here. Now that the market has crashed all over, it's let's blame the poor for it all. Common sense says otherwise. Afterall, the poor were here and you bought here, didnt you?

So, why did you, fsu813, want to be in Springfield with all those poor and rooming houses again?

And, as it keeps getting ignored:

Even I am not proposing new rooming houses, but by understanding the past, we can perhaps find a way to a better future.  It is not by blaming the boarding houses, discriminating against a group because you do not like them or spreading mis-information to further your version of Springfield.

How did this discussion and my statement above get twisted to mean I and Sheclown wanted new rooming houses?  And just for the record, we do not own even one rooming house.

The problem is that it is easy to blame one thing or one group of people.  It isn't that simple.  One thing we can learn from the past is that believing it is that simple and concentrating on removing one group you do not like does not mean your revitazation efforts will be successful.  Quite the opposite, it quarantees failure.

[sheclown]

Strider, you are splitting hairs.  We are indeed on the board of a non-profit which has a rooming house license. And has had it for over 20 years.

That being said.  I think the conversation about the decline of the neighborhood is a good and valuable one.  Personal attacks aside.  We may just learn something from the past...

[sheclown]

Movedsouth, no, I'm not.  I am saying redlining was part of this list: 

1) "white flight" - the middle class's flight to the suburbs. [i]Happened in the 60s a result of desegregation, race riots downtown from 1960 Axe Handle Saturday to the Florida Avenue riots in 1969
[/i]
2) The commercial enterprises leaving the urban core When did this start, what made this happen?

3) Values dropping as the urban core became less desirable. See number one above

4) Law enforcement's tactic of "containment" rather than elimination of crime.

5) The lack of economic diversity - yes, sort of too many poor rather than the mix of economic groups that seems to be required to make a community successful.

6) The prejudice of local organizations as shown by unequal distribution of revitalization funds. Earlier Springfield attempts to revitalize

7) Wide spread issues with drugs and the resulting petty crimes. Crack boom of the 80s?

8 ) lack of functional infra-structure.  Consolidation of the 60s and the infrastructure money going to the suburbs?

9) Lack of proper structural maintenance due to the low property values. See #8

We could call redlining number 10. 

[strider]

Yes, Sheclown, we are on the board of a non-profit that has a halfway house which is the same license per the state as a rooming house.  I just do not consider it the same thing as the typical person off the street can't stay there.  And several have inferred on this forum that we own many, which is not true. But, I get your point, and I stand corrected.

Moved south, you are indeed part of the problem and your attitude, if it is shared by enough others does nothing but insure that any long term revitalization efforts will not succeed.

Once again. let me post the original quote: I completely understand that we are all striving to make Springfield a vibrant family community and boarding houses are what is standing in the way of that. And yes, it was made on the thread over at SPAR Council about the possible legal use of a house on boulevard as a low density group care home.  This is different than the rooming house issue.

Some are letting the personal issues cloud their judgement.  And when the attack is from someone who is truly a slumlord, it becomes laughable.

Ok, enough.  If anyone out there is actually interested in truth and what may perhaps help everyone, then stay tuned and maybe we can continue to discuss this rationally.

[sheclown]

Strider, I see your point and I'll stand corrected too. 

Sheclown.

[AlexS]

Hey Alex.  This thread is about the history of Springfield, and the effects of boarding houses, and group homes etc.  Also the decline and decay of the neighborhood in the first place.

If you scroll back to the beginning of the thread, you can catch up.

We arent discussing present day circumstances or the zoning overlay.

I actually read the whole thread before posting. I usually do.
The original thread asked the question about definition, so I was right on topic. Perhaps it wasn't quite what you felt should be discussed. 

Can any of you really define "boarding house" , "Rooming house",  "Halfway House",  "Bed and Breakfast",  "Extended stay motel" ,"Group Care Home",  "ACLF",  "Residential Treatment Facility" , “Sober Living Facility” and "Community Residential Home"?

This is how a rooming house can be identified.

(A). Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent:
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc;
(C) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.

In 2000 when City Council enacted the overlay (656.365) based on recommendations from the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997 they must have felt that special uses are bad for Springfield. What has changed since then ?

(d)   Over a period of many years, zoning and land use changes in Springfield have served to encourage the decline of the area and not its redevelopment. The Springfield Historic District has been negatively affected by current zoning districts which do not recognize the unique character of the neighborhood. For many years prior to the establishment of the District, the City allowed intensive and intrusive uses to locate in the neighborhood and did not encourage the type of development that promotes and sustains a stable, economically viable, and primarily single-family/owner-occupied neighborhood. Standard zoning districts also do not recognize the small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique development pattern.
(e)   Within the one square mile area of the Springfield Historic District, the Council finds there is a disproportionately large number of rooming houses (13), group care homes, community residential homes of seven or more residents and automotive uses (20), including automobile sales and repairs and related automotive uses.
(h)   The property disinvestment and blight caused by incompatible zoning and other factors associated with core City decline must be reversed through a comprehensive revitalization program that will include zoning districts tailored to the neighborhood. Standards should allow appropriate and compatible development to proceed without the high costs associated with variances and administrative deviations required to deviate from current lot and use standards.
(i)   The zoning districts and regulations contained in this Subpart I were developed with the participation and assistance of neighborhood residents, property owners and City staff.
(j)   The Planning Commission and the Urban Affairs and Planning Committee considered these districts and regulations, held public hearings and made their recommendations to the Council.

The thread was also about a post titled "Help" regarding a property on 1541 Boulevard. New special uses are not allowed any more. I could not find a definition of "low density group home". So lets give the benefit of the doubt and assume what is proposed is legal. It also has been alleged that there are other "low density group homes" in Springfield. Since I could not find a (new) DBPR license, it could be assumed that they fall under one of the exclusion criteria and don't need one. Which begs the question what these houses are legally ? So perhaps in the discussion these new entities should be separated from the rooming/boarding houses. The question may be if these new entities are good or bad for Springfield.

509.013 (4), Florida Statutes (FS)
(a) "Public lodging establishment" means any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests. License classifications of public lodging establishments, and the definitions therefor, are set out in s. 509.242, Florida Statutes. For the purpose of licensure, the term does not include condominium common elements as defined in s. 718.103, Florida Statutes.
(b) The following are excluded from the definition in paragraph (a):
1. Any dormitory or other living or sleeping facility maintained by a public or private school, college, or university for the use of students, faculty, or visitors;
2. Any hospital, nursing home, sanitarium, assisted living facility, or other similar place;
3. Any place renting four rental units or less, unless the rental units are advertised or held out to the public to be places that are regularly rented to transients;

It should be noted that the number of active DBPR lodging licenses for Springfield actually has decreased from 2008 to 2009.

[strider]

AlexS you are right and you are wrong.  This thread was in response to an incorrect statement that boarding houses are the reason Springfield isn't progressing into the "family oriented " community some want it to be.  While some are subscribing other motives, I simply want to show that there are many, many reasons and to show that we must recognize this before we can successfully improve the community.

AlexS, you posted some good info, but what about the other, harder questions?  And, what about the rest of the definitions, if that is what you would prefer to answer.  You notice that in the info from the overlay, it does indeed blame zoning as a reason for the decline and that too many rooming houses is an issue, but as the lack of zoning control as well as other factors allowed too many rooming houses, they took steps to correct that.  Not eliminate rooming houses, but limit the number to what some believe to be more in line with what is suitable.  Also note that they are talking about special uses rather than the permissible uses like the low density houses.  These same experts that you give credit too for identifying rooming houses as a problem also did not consider low density homes to be an issue.

In addition, do you truly believe that the meetings at which theses overlay issues were discussed were actually attended by an accurate cross section of the community?  Is it an accurate assessment of the issues? Are the poor truly represented in today's Springfield? If so, who represents them?

Overall, AlexS, I'm glad to have you part of this discussion.

[Joe]

^ Some retirees, singles, and childless couples presumably. (Not coincidentally, plenty of these groups represented in Springfield's renaissance). I have met many people who intentionally avoid family areas. But generally, I agree with your point. Across all categories, a "family oriented" community is a positive for most people.

[AlexS]

Can I ask, who DOESN'T want it to be a "family oriented" community?

I don't want the community to be anything oriented, neither family, white, black, young, old, single, married, LGBT, yuppee, urban professional, artist or anything else for that matter. Diverse would be just fine. Once it's something oriented it excludes to many others.

But how is that related to boarding houses and it's effects on the community ?