Author Topic: Losing Springfield  (Read 56755 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
Losing Springfield
« on: June 24, 2013, 03:01:40 AM »
Losing Springfield



Two houses, each over 100 years old  have been lost in Springfield within the last thirty days.   
These are called "emergency" demolitions - although as anyone who has driven down East 2nd street will testify - nothing much has changed with the structures in years. No new emergency situations have occurred, no lightning strike, no fire over the weekend.  No hurricane winds or earthquakes shaking the foundations.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-losing-springfield
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:38:13 AM by stephendare »

fsujax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3588
  • Teapartysaurus!
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2013, 08:09:24 AM »
Drove past this Friday on my way home. Very sad. Also noticed the cop car sitting out there too. Who is this woman? and why is she able to wield such power? Is she an appointment by the Mayor? or does she work under Planning or Public Works?

JaxUnicorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2013, 08:17:27 AM »
Drove past this Friday on my way home. Very sad. Also noticed the cop car sitting out there too. Who is this woman? and why is she able to wield such power? Is she an appointment by the Mayor? or does she work under Planning or Public Works?
The demolition of historic structures by the City of Jacksonville is nothing short of a travesty.  Kimberly Scott was appointed to her position in November 2007.
Kim Pryor...Historic Springfield Resident...PSOS Founding Member

mbwright

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2013, 08:20:31 AM »
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.

fsujax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3588
  • Teapartysaurus!
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2013, 08:26:31 AM »
MAybe it's time to contact Ken Amaro, Jim Piggot or Action News and let them investigate this and put it on the airwaves.

civil42806

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2013, 08:27:33 AM »
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.

oh please spare the drama, there  is no fed law violated.  If people would maintain there property we wouldn't be having this conversation

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2013, 08:39:05 AM »
There should be federal charges against her, and everyone involved with the demolitions.

oh please spare the drama, there  is no fed law violated.  If people would maintain there property we wouldn't be having this conversation



Actually, you are wrong.  While common sense says yes, if the owners did a better job, then we would not have this problem, Ms Scott and her Municipal Code Compliance Department can either chose to help people or hinder them.  They consistently chose to hinder them and make it harder for even the most caring owner to do the right thing.  And yes, Springfield is a federally listed Historic District and as such is protected under federal laws.  It appears that the city, certainly lead by Ms Scott, is using Federal funds to demolish historic houses.  If indeed so, then she certainly is breaking federal laws, even above the fact that both the Federal and the city laws charge her with PROTECTING the historic structures, not demolishing them.

Think of it this way.  Once the city removes some of an owners property rights by having the authority to dictate windows issues, siding type, ETC, it also takes some of the responsibility for the preservation of these homes.  The city becomes a de facto partner in the house.

The ordinances all say "protect" in regards to the cities responsibility towards these historic homes.  Once the area  accepts the federal designation, it also accepts the responsibility of protect these homes.  All of this because these homes are intended to transcend one owner or even a hundred owners. They are intended to be here for all future generations.  Today's owners become as much caretaker as owner.

If you are a partner in a house and your partner doesn't do his part, do you pick up the slack and get it done or do you tear it down to spite yourself? That is what Ms. Scott is doing, tearing down historic houses to spite all of us.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 08:55:06 AM by strider »
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

civil42806

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2013, 10:19:14 AM »
"Think of it this way.  Once the city removes some of an owners property rights by having the authority to dictate windows issues, siding type, ETC, it also takes some of the responsibility for the preservation of these homes.  The city becomes a de facto partner in the house. "

Actually no, that's not a fed issue.  Nor does the city accept any responsibility for a home just because its in  a preservation area.  If you think that it explains a lot.  You own a home in a historic district then you assume the responsibility for that property.   the "city" otherwise known as the taxpayers do NOT assume anything, Not the preservation or the maintenance of your home

I understand the consternation about the home demolition.  Loved living in downtown Charleston and Savannah.  But the homes have to be maintained.  As far as laws being broken, sure there are lawyers on this web site that can  answer that better than i

« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:30:13 AM by civil42806 »

civil42806

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2013, 10:56:59 AM »
what federal statue is not being followed protecting a historic district in springfield?


"If you think about it, there must be a reason why  we have both a Federal and a County Courthouse downtown, right?'"

That has nothing to do with question.  Is there a federal law being violated if so, what is it?  And the city does not assume responsibility for any property in a historic district that It does not own.





« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 11:01:46 AM by civil42806 »

civil42806

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2013, 11:37:53 AM »
I'm not claiming that it just affects springfield or riverside or any other historic distric let it be savannah or any other wonderful area.  whats the federal statute that regulates a city authorized historic district

Please your not talking abut the nrhp issue are you?  LOl don't think anyone will be hauled up to court on that
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 11:52:37 AM by civil42806 »

avs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2013, 11:50:05 AM »
It is cited in the article, the local section, at the end "Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions."  No consideration was given, no COA was obtained.

In addition federal monies aren't supposed to be used to tear down structures in a NATIONALLY designated historic district (there can be local designations too FYI.  SPR is NATIONAL). CDBG money is federal money.  The mayor himself said the money was used for demolitions  CDBG money gets filtered through state and local offices so it can be called "local."  But it aint

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2013, 11:57:02 AM »
When I am done with my work day, I will go back and post the federal statues and local ordinances that govern this.  But rest assured that as much as the city wants to say it has no responsibly in maintaining it's federally designated historic structures, it's own ordinances say otherwise.

What do you think it means when it says the city must protect it's historic structures?  What does it mean when it gives itself the power to not only control what an owner does with their property but also repair it without the owners consent?  Or, as they are doing now, tear them down. You can not take control of the fate of someone's property without their consent without also taking responsibility for that property.

Ask Ms Scott and she will tell you they do indeed have responsibility for the"unsafe" structures. They even can prevent the owner from entering their own property. If you have to ask permission to enter, how can you say the city has no responsibility for these structures?

With authority comes the responsibility whether they like it or not.
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

nagrom73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2013, 12:06:37 PM »
It seems like this happens everytime someone goes to the governement asking for other people's money to do their bidding. If you want a government solution, you're going to get one.

avs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2013, 12:23:12 PM »
^ complete nonsense.  The designation of these districts has worked all over the country in helping to preserve our architectural heritage.  Locally, the government needs to stand up for what its laws on the books say.  This has nothing to do with big government vs small government.

m74reeves

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Losing Springfield
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2013, 12:25:46 PM »
The point of the article is that if the City is using federal funds to demolish homes in Springfield (or any historic district), there are certain protocols that they must follow.

A Section 106 review is required by an agency (in this case the City) spending federal funds if the project will impact historic properties listed (or eligible to be listed) in the National Register of Historic places. Part of this review entails submitting a file to the State Historic Preservation Office on buildings over 50 yrs old that will be impacted by this work.

The City's HUD 5 year Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan list the use of CDBG funds for demolition. CDBG funds are city wide, so the CDBG funds that were spent on demolition & clearance may or may not have been spent in Springfield. We can't be sure without addresses.

The City's NSP1 Funding (one time special HUD funds) plans both state the use of demoliton as well, of which about $1 MILLION dollars was set aside for demolition and clearance. NSP1 funds are targeted specifically in zip codes 32206, 32208, 32209, 32244, and 32254. The July 2012 NSP1 quarterly report on the City site (that is the most current) states a goal of demo of 125 properties for land to be "recycled into housing units." The money appears to be mostly all spent in that particular report, but they have not reported the actual number of properties or addresses under the performance measures. The "Draft" 2012-13 HUD Annual Plan [I can't find the final version on the City's website] states that Code Enforcement has demolished 200 structures using NSP1 funds.

The City's NSP3 funding states demolition as a project again, setting aside $400K for this activity, with a goal of demolition of 80 properties. The NSP3 money is specifically to be spent in Springfield and Eastside neighborhoods. As of the date of the most recent report on the city's site (July 2012), no funds had been spent yet.

So, I think Springfield deserves to know if any federal funds are being used to accomplish demolitions. From the City's own (albeit, not very updated) reports, it looks pretty probable. And if it is using federal money, was a Section 106 review conducted for each property demolished?
"Everyone has to have their little tooth of power. Everyone wants to be able to bite." -Mary Oliver