40 Places Code Enforcement Wants to Demolish

[Metro Jacksonville]

40 Places Code Enforcement Wants to Demolish



Recently, the Jacksonville City Council passed a bill that allows demolitions just because a structure is vacant, boarded, has unpaid code liens or without power for two years. Naturally, Municipal Code Compliance has wasted no time getting the demolition process started. Bidding for the demolition of 40 buildings are already underway. You'll be surprised at the condition of some of the places on the list. Here's all 40, their location, and the year they were built.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-feb-40-places-code-enforcement-wants-to-demolish

[sheclown]

Thank you for doing this!  And thank you Kim Pryor for providing the list.

What a shame.  These houses are just a part of the affordable housing stock which will be lost due to short-sited legislation.  Why aren't these homes given to non-profits?  I thought that was part of the deal.

[jaxlore]

damn. exactly give these houses away.

[funguy]

If the number was three times as many..perhaps some of the neighborhoods would finally be viable...

[mbwright]

It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses.  Once demo'd, they are gone for good.  There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time.  As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.

[vicupstate]

It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses.  Once demo'd, they are gone for good.  There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time.  As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.

+1000.  While it is at least somewhat plausible that new construction will one day occur in LaVilla, Brooklyn and Springfield on those vacant lots. I will bet at least 90% of lots will still be vacant in 10 years.  JAX is truly using the Detroit model here, and will have the same success rate.   

[sheclown]

It would be much better for Habit or other group to rehab these houses.  Once demo'd, they are gone for good.  There are no developers wanting to infill in these places at this time.  As more vacant lots appear, the neighborhood fabric is destroyed, and gets worse, not better.

+1000.  While it is at least somewhat plausible that new construction will one day occur in LaVilla, Brooklyn and Springfield on those vacant lots. I will bet at least 90% of lots will still be vacant in 10 years.  JAX is truly using the Detroit model here, and will have the same success rate.   

Indeed.

Kay has the stats -- rebuilding is highly unlikely.

[gerschea@gmail.com]

Lets face it, most of the houses are dumps in the hood that realistically even if saved are going to sit there empty for years to come just rotting away more. I am all for preserving historical homes, but lets be realistic here.

[Tacachale]

So why use taxpayer money to pay to demolish them?

[Gunnar]

Agreed - I'd rather have rotting houses (as long as they do not pose any danger) than grassy lots and asbestos-filled air.

[I-10east]

If you go in these neighborhoods and talk to the people that live there, they do not want long abandoned dilapidated homes that are nothing but an improvised shelter for the homeless, a drug hideout, an arsonist's opportunity etc etc. Preservationists are always gonna look at any little tin shack with a glass all the way full spirit; Reality is much more dismal. I agree with Gerschea 100%. TBH, I see maybe about seven of forty that I would want saved. There's a reason why these places are on this list. Contrary to popular belief, tearing down houses is a very slow and gradual process. The weakest/less aesthetic etc will be revealed and the first torn down.

[thelakelander]

If you go in these neighborhoods and talk to the people that live there, they do not want long abandoned dilapidated homes that are nothing but an improvised shelter for the homeless, a drug hideout, an arsonist's opportunity etc etc. Preservationists are always gonna look at any little tin shack with a glass all the way full spirit; Reality is much more dismal.

Maybe in Jax because we don't expect anything better is possible. I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.

I agree with Gerschea 100%. TBH, I see maybe about seven of forty that I would want saved. There's a reason why these places are on this list.

I'm still trying to figure out the reason of how this list was specifically developed. I drove to see every home in the Urban Core and Northside on this list over weekend.  I saw a ton of structures....not on the list... that should be torn down. Yet, despite being in worse shape, they aren't on the list. I'm highly interested in learning the selection process utilized.

Contrary to popular belief, tearing down houses is a very slow and gradual process. The weakest/less aesthetic etc will be revealed and the first torn down.

Yes, a slow gradual process that you don't realize how different things end up being 10 years down the road. Take a look at the 1990s images of downtown (front page story today). Many of the structures in those images are gone. They all weren't torn down with one big wrecking ball party. A demo here, a demo there. Move into the 21st century and then you start to realize how much has been lost and replaced with absolutely nothing.

[vicupstate]

Two things are occurring in parallel that make absolutely no sense.

Virgin land is continually being developed farther and farther away from the city's core. Massive amounts of money must be spent to build roads, install water and sewer lines, provide garbage collection, provide police and fire protection, parks, schools etc. to these areas.  For the most part, these areas do not generate the tax revenues nor the impact fees to cover the cost of these services. The difference is covered by those living in already developed areas.

Meanwhile tax revenues are being used to tear down existing homes that already have utilities, paved streets, and already served by public safety. Yet there are no plans and likely won't be to build something new on these sites.  As fewer and fewer people are served in these previously developed areas, the cost per resident to continue to serve them goes up.

How long can that last before it simply can't be sustained?

   

[I-10east]

I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.

It depends were you live in town. If you are in Springfield or Murray Hill (not saying that no homes have not been torn down in those places), the overall feeling of home restoration would probably be more optimistic than if you were on the Eastside or Grand Park etc. Below link is what happens when a home has seen better days, and should be torn down. Notice the neighbors wanting a house demo like I was mentioning; Some of yall would probably say 'save that one also'.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/jacksonvilles-blighted-properties/30973112

[strider]

I believe most residents would prefer abandoned houses to be fixed up, creating jobs for those living in areas of high unemployment, to demolition with their own money. Unfortunately, that's not on the table even though we have the means to place it there. This is much bigger than preservation. It's an economic issue that ultimately drives the final nail in the coffins of our most depressed neighborhoods.

It depends were you live in town. If you are in Springfield or Murray Hill (not saying that no homes have not been torn down in those places), the overall feeling of home restoration would probably be more optimistic than if you were on the Eastside or Grand Park etc. Below link is what happens when a home has seen better days, and should be torn down. Notice the neighbors wanting a house demo like I was mentioning; Some of yall would probably say 'save that one also'.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/jacksonvilles-blighted-properties/30973112

Yes, some of the residents said they wish for houses to be torn down.  Those same residents said that they want something else there, not just empty lots.  Which is exactly what Lake said.  And I know to be true.  I also know that some houses should indeed come down.  Doesn't mean that the 40 on this list should, as for the most part, they should not be taken down.  Certainly not when, though it is hard to tell from what folks like Mr Jones and Ms Lee say, this ordinance is not just demolitions, it allows for the taking of properties and then turning them over to both for profit and non-profit entities to rehab them. Interesting that the report you linked didn't mention that, isn't it?

The issue is that regardless of what the ordinance says, demolition will be the "fix" of choice. Unless we can vote in new and better leadership.