Email to HPC:
Subject: Fwd: JHPC Request for NSP3 Pubic Comment Follow-up
Attached you will find three documents. 1. PSOS letter of concerns for NSP3 funds (dated 2011), 2. NSP3 Action Plan, and 3. NSP3 Substantial Amendment. On page 12 and 13 of attached document #3 (substantial amendment) you will note that public comment stated: "Several responses expressed concern with the potential for demolition within the Historic District. Their common desire was that the City work under the auspices or supervision of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission" (p. 12). Additionally, it was noted in public comment that: "There were several suggestions as to new aspects of the program such as a
leaseback option, concentrating efforts on a “model block” and “mothballing” properties as an alternative to demolition in the Historic District" (p. 13).
Giving that MCCD used NSP funds to demolish two homes on E. 2nd Street less than four months ago with complete disregard for Section 106 reviews AND complete disregard of public comment (stated above in the amendment) regarding demolitions and preservation, I request that JHPC review the attached documents in their entirety and demand that the neighborhoods department include JPHC in all decisions made with NSP3 funds in our historic district. In addition to demanding that they use other means of blight removal (i.e. mothballing) as opposed to demolitions.
It should also be noted, given MCCDs past practices, they should not be trusted with funds in our historic neighborhood. If you recall, the last time JHPC requested assistance in stabilizing a home's porch (129 E. 2nd Street) Code responded with an emergency demolition less than 12-hours later (coincidentally using funds they now how to pay back to the Feds.)
Thank you for your prompt attention to this very important preservation matter.
Joel is recommending that we put this on the December 10th agenda so that it can be on the early versions of the draft and more people will see it. If it were to go on the November agenda it would be on the “Addendum” agenda that is not available until the day of the meeting and less people would know about it.
anything related to city politics, code enforcement and city rules
Moderator: Board Members
1 post • Page 1 of 1