The plan was upscale duplexes on prime waterfront. It died aborning and became a neighborhood eyesore.
By SHARON L. BOND
Published August 24, 2003
ST. PETERSBURG - It is bad enough to live in a quiet residential area and then have construction start on a multiunit complex.
It is worse to have that construction stall, leaving a woods cleared of many of its trees and buildings only partially constructed.
In other words, an eyesore.
That was the story of Rutland Estates for four years, a planned complex of 27 high end, duplex units nestled on Little Bayou, prime waterfront property in southeastern St. Petersburg.
City officials could do little to force a permanent cleanup.
"We had something nice down here," said Cassie Rucks, one of those in the Bonita Bayou neighborhood who objected to the development because it would sit on about 10 acres of unspoiled land that once belonged to the historic Rutland estate next door.
After the project at 5200 Fourth St. S was abandoned, vandals scourged the unfinished buildings. Windows and doors were broken. Weather damaged what little interior work was done. People camped out there. Grass grew high. The development had the look of a dump.
But because it was private land and a private developer was building on it, the city of St. Petersburg could do little about the mess left behind in 1999 when the developer declared bankruptcy.
The threat of demolition is the biggest hammer the city has in such cases. And with Rutland, that couldn't work initially.
"When that went belly up, it wasn't deteriorated property. It was new construction," said Mike Dove, deputy mayor for neighborhoods in St. Petersburg.
"It did through time become deteriorated enough to declare the property needed to be condemned," Dove said.
"We obviously have a responsibility to private property rights," Dove said. "We don't have a lot of options."
Citing code violations, declaring properties nuisances and pursuing for unpaid taxes also are entry points where the city and county can try to get sites cleaned up. But with a project such as Rutland that enters bankruptcy and passes through several owners, there are few ways to get immediate action.
An engineer hired by the city of St. Petersburg recommended early last year that the three unfinished buildings of Rutland Estates be torn down. Later in the year, the city notified the owners the buildings and the perimeter wall were dangerous, no longer fit for their intended uses and would be condemned and then demolished.
Deadlines were set for the owner to take action and missed. The owner appealed the condemnation and the case dragged on until summer.
Then it was resolved by a new owner, who moved quickly to tear down the buildings and the wall. The new developer, D.R. Horton of Texas, plans to start over on the complex.
Rucks said that the beginning of development has to be better than what neighbors faced since 1999.
Rutland was a special case, Dove said.
"Four years is not necessarily par for the course. Most demolition is for existing buildings that have been deteriorating over time. The process is a lot shorter. You are able to declare it a blighted property. Once that determination is made, the process can be fairly quick."
St. Petersburg isn't the only city in south Pinellas with sites such as Rutland. The city of Seminole has several pieces of abandoned property in the heart of its business district. Efforts are being made to market those to get them redeveloped.
Mitch Bobowski, general services director, said condemnation can be a lengthy and costly process so Seminole works with property owners and requires empty buildings to be kept safe.
The boarded-up Kash n' Karry on Park Boulevard has been empty since 1990.
"We've been trying to market that for a number of years," Bobowski said. "Through our building office and code enforcement and the fire department, we are making sure it does not fall into a state of disrepair where we would have to step in (to condemn)."
He considers the marketing efforts and working with owners to be the strongest tool Seminole has for abandoned properties.
Bobowski said owners may have reasons to leave sites vacant or undeveloped. And while a vacant building might look ragged, it might be salvageable.
"From a development standpoint, if the structure is sound ... a major renovation could transform the property into something that looks like it was newly built."
Dove said St. Petersburg prefers to have owners rehabilitate buildings rather than the city be forced to tear them down.
