Thanks for posting that jen!
I've been so busy, I'm just catching up on some content here & the site looks great! I think I posted a similar comment to the one above in the other story by Emma.

Structural stability is not the only criterion the City uses to judge whether to allow demolition of an historic building. In the case of 1901 6th, the Preservation Commission voted last year 3 to 3 for/against saving the building. In this case, a tie meant they did not recommend saving it, and that was Preservation Director Bill Crouch's final decision. The argument against saving it was that the buliding had been remodeled a number of times with so little consideration of historic design (ie, what some call "remuddling") that it's historic integrity has already been lost, so there's not enough there to save. As shown by the commission vote, as well as by comments submitted by different neighbors at the time, opinions on that were split.

I don't know if the issue of saving 1901 6th can be revisited with the City or not. I think it's totally up to the owner now. We haven't seen any movement toward his plan of replacing it, but that might change if/when the economy picks up, I don't know.

Jennifer, the owner of the property doesn't plan on replacing the building, she wants to put a parking lot there. She can't, as commercial parking lots are not permitted on residential land. The building was allowed to deteriorate for 30 years and was finally destroyed for nothing.

506 S Street will be a vacant, weed-filled lot, at the very least until the owner dies. Then perhaps whoever inherits it might build something there, eventually.

Emma wrote an article on this, too. Check it out.

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/422/History_versus_hazard

Jennifer: Once the owner dies (she is around 90 now) the liens will have to be paid before the lot can be transferred. Since the fines are probably more than the property is worth (as a vacant lot,) the lot will most likely become city property anyhow. Since the city doesn't really have any sort of mechanism to deal with that sort of thing, it will probably just sit around until someone figures out how to sell it off. How much longer it sits around after that depends on the economics of building single-family homes in the central city at that time.

William - I'm really impressed with your knowledge of the area. BTW - I have a copy of your Southside Park book.. good stuff!

Yes, it'll be too bad if the lot becomes weed infested. I will surely continue to submit code violation complaints if that happens (whether she pays the fines or not... the fines will just increase) as well as the weed abatement program through the fire department (if they still run that).

Regarding 1901 6th -
I'm no expert on historical preservation, so here's a picture of the two houses.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2971798417_ef9e25b981.jpg?v=0