Bostwick Building To Be Demolished?

[thelakelander]

At the very least, preserving the facade along Bay and Ocean Streets should be considered.  However, would this comply with the MCCD's definition of demolish?

[WmNussbaum]

Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?

Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.

She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.

[sheclown]

So $300 is the LOWEST bid it can get for lawn mowing? 

Wow.  That stinks of major corruption.

[sheclown]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

[mtraininjax]

I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.

[thelakelander]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

I'm all for mothballing.

[Timkin]

Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, Strider, there is no General "Council." The city's attorneys are the General Counsel and her assistants. The legislative body of the city is the City Council. Got it?

Second point, Ernest Street, although you like TOTAL ANONYMITY on this board, you criticize the same of the owners of the properties to which your comments are directed. What happened to "good for the goose, good for the gander"? Besides, you can probably find out who the owners are with a little nosing around SunBiz and the Property Appraiser's and the Clerk of Court's websites. And BTW, not all residents of the beaches are the rich folks you imply they are, so relax your biases a little.

She Clown, you won't get an argument from me about $300 for a small mowing job, but the City pays the contractor the $300, not $35, because the contractor was the low/only bidder for the job. If it collects $300 from the owner, there is no profit other than maybe some interest - if you call that profit.

      We got it , Wm.   

[ben says]

I would love to see the City take the property and give to the Police and Fire Pension Fund to fix and redevelop. Keane may be a lightening rod for his salary and pension, but they have a great track record with getting the most out of buildings, and it would help our Pension issues in trading buildings for contributions.

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...). If we ever plan on downtown making a resurgence as a cultural/entertainment center, as opposed to a civic center, we need to use Bostwick (and other empty buildings....Library) as something interesting. Something that will generate organic growth and foot traffic along East Bay. NOT another building where people show up for work, 8-5, then leave for the burbs the second work is over.

[Timkin]

^ I ll second that.  We have too much damn government in downtown now.   WAY too much.  That is (in part) why buildings like the Bostwick building will likely NOT be saved.

   You wanna revive downtown?  You wanna save buildings?  Get rid of the deadwood that initiates the destruction of these places.  Get rid of the mind set that has NO value or concern for anything historic or important. Get rid of the mindless groups that GET PAID, to ensure that we lose everything that was ever beautiful or significant.    This behavior has been increasing for the last half century and it has to be done away with before we have nothing at all left. ( We aren't that far away from being there, now)

    Get a government in place, of people who are committed to making downtown Jacksonville a destination again , instead of a government collective with massive areas of void empty spaces and parking garages.

[mtraininjax]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

[bornnative]

Lake.

This needs to be mothballed, that way the roof could be temporarily covered and the structure perhaps reinforced from the inside.

It does not qualify for mothballing at this point b/c it is not landmarked, but that is easily fixed if the owners are involved and onboard. 

Mothballing it abates the nuisance, at least temporarily, from the city's point of view.

The owners have no apparent interest in mothballing, or in pursuing any kind of landmark status, unless it is within the context of a purchase agreement - and to that end, it is my understanding that they have declined cash offers because they would prefer to pursue demolition and maintain ownership of the parcel versus sell the property as is for less than their target price.

[thelakelander]

That's unfortunate but that type of thinking is partially why the building remains in its decayed state today.  During the boom, the owners had an unrealistic target asking price that made it unfeasible for market rate redevelopment.

[ben says]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

[Pinky]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*.  It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property.  I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else??  All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down.  In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it.  It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT. 

I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights..  If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so.  Is it stupid for them to do so?  Perhaps.  Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown?  Perhaps.  Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property?  Nope.

(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits? )

ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. 

[vicupstate]

The LAST thing (besides tearing it down) we need to do with this building is make it another piece of civic property. Police, fire, court, tax, federal, state, jail, SAO, public defender, city hall.....the majority of downtown is a civic center, filled with civic type businesses that revolve around downtown being a civic center (law offices...).

How shortsighted this vision is? We have a need to fix the Pension crisis, forget government if we cannot fix it, no one will be able to function in a government as more and more of our taxes go to fund pensions. Keane does NOT have to sell the building back to the city, he can sell it to the highest offer. He knows what he is doing, as with past sales.

Perhaps you have no idea that under Peyton, the city began sending departments outside of downtown, they moved code enforcement to the Art Museum area, and expanded offices for services to the suburbs. Then under Brown, rightly so, they have moved people back downtown, with the empty space we are all paying for in City Hall and other buildings. Yes, there are still some services in the suburbs, not everyone wants to go to the same building for tax collecting. Rightly so there are options for driver's licenses too. Brown is on track with bringing government back downtown and the technology has allowed people to do more online too. I applaud his decisions to centralize operations, once again, after Peyton de-centralized them.  No need for a half-empty city hall. We pay for the lights and AC even when no one is using the space!

This isn't really a thread on the pension crisis. This is a thread on saving the Bostwick Building. IMO, handing it over to some city employees or ancillaries is as nearsighted as you can get... My idea, handing it (or realistically, selling it!) over to something/someone different is the key for longterm organic growth and stability.

...Which is exactly what the present owners intend to do; *sell it*.  It's not the place of the city government to "hand it over" to anybody, it's a privately owned piece of property.  I mean, if the city doesn't like something you're choosing to do with something you own, do you think they can (or should be able to) decide to just give it to someone else??  All the city can do is compel the owner to either maintain it in a safe (code compliant) state or tear it down.  In this case the owner apparently believes that the land would be more attractive to a potential buyer without a dilapidated structure on it, and has chosen to demolish it.  It's completely within his rights to do so; HE OWNS IT. 

I really don't understand how some of y'all view private property ownership rights..  If somebody wants to buy a piece of property and then for whatever reason allow it to fall into disrepair, it's their right to do so.  Is it stupid for them to do so?  Perhaps.  Is it an ugly blight upon our downtown?  Perhaps.  Is it anybody's business besides the owner of the property?  Nope.

(I mean, Jeez- if you don't wash your car regularly, should some governmental agency be able to give it to someone else with better car hygiene habits? )

ITS PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. 

No one should be allowed to let a property deteriorate to the point that is is unsafe to even walk by it on the sidewalk. Neither is it alright to let a building deteriorate such that the surrounding property is devalued by it's poor condition.  Nor is it alright to let a lawn or vacant lot become overgrown to the point that it is a breeding ground for snakes, vermin, etc.

Private property rights are not unlimited, just like any other right that we enjoy.  The private property owner's rights ARE limited at the point at which OTHER's rights are impaired. 

BTW, the city could not 'take' the Bostwick or any other building without paying fair market value.