🏠 Investigation 001
The Demolition of a 99-year-old Woman's Home
Status: Active Investigation
Last Updated: July 2026
Executive Summary
This investigation documents the events leading to the demolition of a 1930 home owned by a 99-year-old Tampa resident.
The investigation is based on public records, emails, text messages, photographs, property records, and firsthand observations gathered during efforts to preserve the home.
According to the information assembled to date, the homeowner intended to return to her home after recovering from illness. During that period, family members and others explored repair, financing, and sale options while communicating with City officials.
As a licensed general contractor, I inspected the property and believed repair options should have been evaluated before demolition.
And the story didn't end with the demolition.
After the City demolished her home, the 99-year-old homeowner was billed $13,580.50 for the demolition and related costs.
She lost her home—and then received the bill for tearing it down.
This report presents the documented chronology and supporting evidence so residents, reporters, and public officials can review the information and reach their own conclusions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
🏡 Background
This investigation concerns the demolition of a 1930 home owned by a 99-year-old Tampa resident.
During the period leading up to the demolition, the homeowner spent several months in a rehabilitation facility. After her release, she was hospitalized with pneumonia before moving in with her granddaughter while continuing to recover. Throughout that time, the homeowner intended to return home. Family members were exploring whether to rehabilitate the home or sell it, and decision-making authority changed as power of attorney was transferred to another family member.
A handyman had begun cleaning the property, removing damaged flooring, and assessing repairs when a City notice posted on the home brought the matter to Julie Magill's attention. As a licensed general contractor, Julie Magill inspected the property, met with City officials, and participated in discussions regarding possible repair options and alternatives to demolition.
This report presents the documented chronology of events, supporting records, and communications so that residents, reporters, and public officials can review the available evidence and understand the sequence of events leading to the demolition.
📅 Documented Timeline
The following timeline is based on emails, public records, photographs, text messages, video recordings, and firsthand observations gathered during this investigation.
November 5, 2025
City Notice Posted on Property "Order to Vacate"
The City posted this notice on the property while the homeowner was in a rehab facility after a fall.
Supporting Documents: Notice on door. Pic available.
November 19, 2025
Handyman Discovers Notice on Door
While cleaning the home, removing damaged flooring, paneling, and assessing repairs needed, he discovered a notice and sent the pic to Julie Magill.
Supporting Documents - text messages and pics available
December 9 2025
City email from Julie Magill to Deborah Radke to explain that the scope was a hole in the bathroom ceiling and the rest general maintenance and cleaning.
Supporting Documents -Email correspondence
December 16 2025
Return email from Deborah Radke stating more repairs needed other than the hole in the ceiling. I returned an email asking city for details.
Supporting Documents _ Email correspondence
December 22, 2025
Homeowner released from rehab but put in hospital for pneumonia.
Supporting Documents - Family Timeline
December 27, 2025
Owner released from Hospital to finish recovering at relatives home. Also waiting for home to be ready for her to come back to.
Supporting Documents - Family Timeline
January 15 2026
I met city officials at the house to discuss their issues with the house. Repair options were discussed. I emailed Deborah Radke that I would be pulling a BLD Permit but needed the demo order rescinded. Asked her what was needed from me. I was sent a modification form the owner had to sign, along with a scope of work and timeline.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence and video of inspection
Inspection video: https://1drv.ms/v/c/aff1ebfc14e3326f/IQClEayX_8-MQpIvhRQAnHj7AaO1OFOMi4Zd0XIuUYpZiOE?e=gKVH50
January 22 2026
I emailed Deborah Radke to explain the family was trying to secure funds for the permit items and also a family member was wanting to step in and take over the repairs. I asked what I should advise them as far a time frame to avoid the demo order from remaining. I got a reply email that a family member had reached out for a rehab form as well. There was a turn in date of March 4, 2026.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
March 31 2026
After several weeks of trying to come up with funds, the family decided to try and sell the property. I sent a purchase agreement to the city and was told the current fees accrued were $460.50. The contract closing date was 4/30/26.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 6 2026
Email from Deborah Radke asking for extension.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 7 2026
Buyer backed out due to a reverse mortgage making the price too high for him to make a profit as a rehab. I got another Buyer in the meantime and sent Deborah an extension until May 26th.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 20 2026
The 2nd buyer had to back out due to a contractor estimate that was too high for him. I asked Deborah for another month or two. This was to either try to get another Buyer or follow through finishing up repairs. This request was denied and she stated the demolition order was back in place. I replied and asked them to meet me again at the property to explain to me why it was a tear down. I told her that I was not convinced at the first meeting that anyone actually crawled under the home as we inspected and the pilings were intact. I told her the home was secured and solid except for a couple of subfloor issues in the wet spaces at tub and kitchen.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 21 2026
I sent a long email to Deborah that explained that the owner was in recuperative care and did not receive the notices from the family nor the ones posted on the door. I also explained that the family had begun to clean out the home, remove old flooring to fix the subfloor, got some of her contents out in order to remodel it for her to return to. I stated the home had been secured and then cited the code that gave reasons to activate a demo order. I told her the home did not meet most of the reasons to make that determination. I told her that the yard would be cleaned and mowed as soon as the demo order was removed as it was also an order to vacate the premises. The family was afraid of breaking the law. I asked her to acknowledge this email as a formal appeal to remove the demo status as the home did not meet the qualifications listed in the code. I also asked for her intentions and an answer that day.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 26 2026
I sent an email to Deborah asking if she was going to respond to the last email about removing the order. I told her it was unfair to keep this elderly lady in limbo. I got a return email from her telling me she was waiting on a response from the District Supervisor, Michael Peterson. She would provide me with an update. I emailed back to ask how long that reply might take and if the demo order was on hold until he responded.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
May 29 2026
I emailed Deborah to tell her that the client is suffering from emotional distress and to provide an answer today.
Supporing Documents - Email correspondence
June 3 2026
I emailed Deborah to ask about the last email. I also told her there were personal items remaining in the home. I asked to meet again as the family is willing to do the repair but not allowed back in the home.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
June 6 2026
I was notified by the original worker that the home was gone. The machinery was still sitting in the lot and it was completely cleared. I emailed Deborah and asked her about it. The great granddaughter says she was told by Deborah that there was nothing they could do and that Deborah told her she did not like speaking to "realtors", meaning me.
Supporting Documents - Email correspondence
June 7 2026
I emailed Deborah asking for the demolition checklist that was used. No reply.
Supporting Document - Email correspondence
June 13, 2026
I emailed again asking for the demolition checklist.
Supporting Document - Email correspondence
June 14, 2026
I received an email asking for the exact information I was seeking. I was told it may need to undergo a records request.
I replied to the email stating I wanted the check list with the criteria for demolishing the home. I told her I had on video them mentioning the roof and squatters getting in were among the reasons for the decision. I reminded her the house was totally secured. I also reminded her I never got a 2nd meeting as requested.
I received the demolition checklist and notice of violation.
Supporting Document - Email correspondence and checklist
June 16, 2026
I emailed Deborah and asked her if she realized the information on the form was extremely questionable. The home was secure. The only debris was the flooring that he took out right before the notice to vacate. It was not overgrown. The improved value was listed as $124,931.00 I told her I did comps and a 3/2 fixed up in this neighborhood would easily be valued at up to $350K Asked where they got the value.
I got a return email suggesting I needed a public records request.
I replied with "do i need a records request for that question?"
Deborah replied with the improved value is taken from the Hillsborough County Appraisers office.
I replied telling her that value was fine for the before renovation value but the the improved value was up to 350K. Even the assessed value was 184K.
Supporting Document - Email Correspondence
June 21, 2026
I received and email from Deborah Radke directing me to send any further requests to Michael Peterson.
Supporting Document - Email Correspondence
July 21, 2026
I sent Michael Peterson and email stating that I had repeatedly asked for another meeting. I mentioned the video of him at the first meeting. I mentioned the family deserved an explanation.
Supporting Document - Email Correspondence
July 23, 2026
I received and email back from Michael Peterson telling me he had spoken to the family to address their concerns.
I also received a telephone call from Shavorae Thornton, the great granddaughter. She told me Michael Peterson called her and basically tried to smooth things over. She also told him the ashes from Hazel's son and husband were in the home. Michael did not offer anything to compensate the family.
Supporting Documentation - Email Correspondence and phone record
July 24, 2026
I sent an email to Michael Peterson with an authorization to speak to me as the personal representative of the family. I also stated no more verbal conversations. I told him I would be sending the family's wishes.
Supporting Documentation - Email Correspondence and Authorization Form.
August 6, 2026
I received a text message from the great granddaughter that there was a bill in the amount of $13580.50 for the demo of the home.