Author Topic: Losing Springfield Plastics  (Read 23045 times)

JaxUnicorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2013, 06:26:41 PM »
The above Referenced property is cited as an unsecured/ unguarded vacant building and therefore is a nuisance violation of the local ordinance.
I don't think there is any question how I feel about MCCD.  However, I believe the citation was issued because the building was unsecured/unguarded AND vacant.  Just my two cents worth.
Kim Pryor...Historic Springfield Resident...PSOS Founding Member

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5554
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2013, 07:30:35 PM »
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday. 


sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5554
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2013, 07:35:32 PM »

« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 07:37:20 PM by sheclown »

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5554
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2013, 09:23:23 PM »
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.

Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.

Huh?

Demosthenes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2013, 10:15:45 PM »
Hitler made the trains run on time, and resurrected the German middle class.... Just saying.

Springfielder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • Preservation SOS
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2013, 01:18:41 AM »
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.

Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.

Huh?

"Kim Daniels is horrible, but the REAL issue here isn't the fact that she is ignorant."

The above is a quote from you about a year ago regarding Kim Daniels and the anti-discrimination legislation that she opposed.

I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that you now think she is wonderful.

So what's your point? Obviously it's not one in which people will give credit, when it's due. That's exactly what sheclown was doing. Thanks for doing what you can to be negative...  :o


sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5554
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2013, 07:30:29 AM »
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Emerson

Daniels has the chutzpah to go where no councilman has gone before.... up against code enforcement.  And I respect her for doing that.

Relax apache.  I'm not jabbing you -- laughing at the irony that is constantly Jacksonville, for sure.









Demosthenes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2013, 07:37:37 AM »
She seems to relish headlines more than issues. As soon as she realizes there are no headlines with a code enforcement fight, she will drop you guys for support of a KKK museum, or some such foolishness. Don't trust crazy.

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2013, 08:10:55 AM »
Like her, hate her, Ms Daniels is indeed an elected council person.   While it is certainly our responsibility as tax payers and the voting public to criticize bad behavior of our elected officials, it is perhaps even more important to reward good behavior.  To do less is counter productive and simply unwise. 

However, this isn't about Ms Daniels, it is about a powerful Municipal Code Compliance department and chief that few seem willing to even question.  Who seems to get away with lying under oath, ignoring laws they themselves try to insure others follow and being disrespectful to all whom they interact with. Ms Daniels is elected and so is at risk of being voted out.  Ms Scott, wielding more power and perhaps behaving far worse than Ms Daniels ever has, can not be voted out. She has already survived a new mayor's restructuring and the Office of General Counsel seems to often protect her bad behavior. Her department can do more harm in a week than Ms Daniels can in her whole tenure.

Sometimes it isn't the devil you see you have to worry about, it is the one sitting in the the shadows.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 08:24:59 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.

mbwright

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2013, 08:32:32 AM »
For some reason the old military recruiting poster, the one with uncle same point his finger, saying I Want You comes to mind.  Only this time, it is Kimberly Scott, and the text is I want your Historic building demolished.   

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2013, 09:53:39 AM »
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.

Springfielder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • Preservation SOS
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2013, 11:23:28 AM »
Kimberly Daniels was wonderful last Friday.

Well I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that your impression of her may be changing since the time you posted the quote I copied above.

Huh?

"Kim Daniels is horrible, but the REAL issue here isn't the fact that she is ignorant."

The above is a quote from you about a year ago regarding Kim Daniels and the anti-discrimination legislation that she opposed.

I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that you now think she is wonderful.

So what's your point? Obviously it's not one in which people will give credit, when it's due. That's exactly what sheclown was doing. Thanks for doing what you can to be negative...  :o

My original point is quite simple. In my opinion, Kimberly Daniels appears to be a fool.

That opinion seems to be one that many, seemingly respected, MJ posters, including sheclown, agree with, according to their own posts on previous Kim Daniels topics.

My secondary point, is that it appears pretty hypocritical to me for sheclown to be, seemingly, critical of me by her direct response to my original post.

I posed the question:
Is it only me that is fearful of Kim Daniels being the person that is becoming the figurehead for this historic home/building situation?

Sheclown responded:
You gotta love Jacksonville!

I would say thats a pretty clear jab directly at me, so I responded.
I don't think it's a big deal. Call me negative if you wish. I was responding in kind. We can get back on topic now I guess.

One day, it's likely that you will sit back and wish it wasn't Kim Daniels that is on your side on this one.
It wasn't a jab at you, it was clearly a comment on how Jacksonville (as a whole) works, which is generally against anything positive and many times, embracing the worst


iloveionia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2013, 12:35:39 PM »
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.

Circa 1922
Zone as: Mixed Use Residential/Store/Office
It's a lovely old building inside both top and bottom. 
Tin ceilings downstairs. 
Two huge apartments upstairs. 
"Coded" Historical. 


Debbie Thompson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2013, 12:44:40 PM »
And even if it were not coded that way, John P, it's an old building that needs to be saved.  When they did the historic district, they failed to "code" the commerical buildings on 8th and Main as historic, but that doesn't mean many of them aren't of the same vintage as the rest of the neghborhood.  "Coding" them on a piece of paper doesn't affect their age or history one way or another.    Similarly, Durkeeville isn't "protected" as an historic district, but many of the homes are just as old.  Note I put "protected" in quotes, because our city does not do it's utmost to protect its history, even when required to by law.

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Losing Springfield Plastics
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2013, 01:01:52 PM »
I dont think the old plastics buildings is a historic building. It is coded as noncontributing if I am correct.

Circa 1922
Zone as: Mixed Use Residential/Store/Office
It's a lovely old building inside both top and bottom. 
Tin ceilings downstairs. 
Two huge apartments upstairs. 
"Coded" Historical. 

Yeah, same argument used by Code and the Building Adjustment Board's "engineers", not historic so no protections.  Except that Iloveionia is correct and  it is indeed historic and indeed has those protections.

You used to be able to tell from the property record card:

REC  LUSE  DESC                      ZONING FRONTAGE    DEPTH    UNITS TP  ACRES     PRICE AJ REASON   AJ PRICE       VALUE       
  1  0169  SFR HISTORIC MISC       S CRO       50.00    70.00    50.00 F     .08    600.00 DP            456.00       22800

The example for 1948 Pearl is above.  If that line says it is Historic, it is a contributing structure. 

"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.