Enjoy the show!
May 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Email
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Irreverent and Unrepentant Satire and Irony
parkridgeunderground
@gmail.com
@gmail.com
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(178)
-
▼
May
(16)
- Memorial Day, 2010
- COW(Finance/P&R/PW) 5-24-2010 -- video!
- Another Committee of the HOLE!
- Smile!
- Comment In The Spotlight!
- A Wednesday Re-wind!
- City Council Meeting 5-17-2010 -- Video!
- Blame Game Grab Bag!
- Armed Forces Day -- May 15, 2010
- From Point A to Point B!
- COW 5-10-2010 - Video
- COW Pow Wow!
- Thursday PRU Briefs!
- Freshman Year Is Over!
- 2010 Budget -- Mayor's Veto Message -- and Video
- A Really Big Shoo Tonight!
-
▼
May
(16)
Links
Answers to FAQs and Searches
- Mayor's salary = $12,000 per yr
- City Clerk's salary = $9,000 per yr
- Alderman's salary = $1,200 per yr
- 2010/11 annual budget = $52.7mm
- 2010/11 City Employees = 259
- School Board salaries = $0
- Park Board salaries = $0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Nasties & Crawlies
15 comments:
The city is losing money and laying off employees but Ryan wants to talk about buying land for parking??????????
Now I have heard everything!!!!!
Anonymous @ 1:59,
Ask not what businesses can do for Park Ridge, ask what Park Ridge can do for businesses...
...anyhoo...I found the discussion about land grades very interesting. I think Mr. Goetz hit the bullseye when he remarked about the building codes already being in place, but lack of enforcement is the issue...
Isn't that the point?? This whole bruhaha about the new house on Vine Street. One side says that the other side violated existing code. I can see their frustration, but I can also see that the person who bought the house was relying on his GC and, just as important, the city inspectors. It would appear that the property passed everything. WHat do you do after the fact?? The city OK'd the house for occupancy and said it passed everything. They cannot now say they were wrong and require changes without compensating the owner of the property. What a mess!!!
What about the owners of the properties affected? Like the man said there is no reveiw process for them. How are they supposed to be compensated for there loss? It is a big mess.
Sorry if I left the wrong impression. Of course I feel terrible for those who are now flooding. They did nothing and now through no fault of their own the are flooding. It is just that the way many would want to rectify this situation is to have the owner of the new house fix the problem. If I am the owner, I am going to fight against that one all day. I have all the paper work that says the city reviewed everything and said it was OK. If one were to go back against the builder I am sure they would say please prove how this house caused the flooding problem. A part of the reason you have inspectors is that if there is a problem, it is a hell of a lot easier to fix before all the rest of the bits and pieces are added (in this case you have landscaping and possible even a part of the house or garage). Another side issue is does the city even admit to the missed violation?
So what are we left with. Should the city own up to their mistake pay to fix the problem? Would that come out of pocket or does the city have some kind of insurance to cover mistakes by inspectors. I am not sure if that is the kind of precedent we want to set. I do not see this ending in a way that will be fair to all invovled. I also do not see it ending without lawyers.
FYI, It's been said that the "owner of the new home WAS the contractor as well.
As a contractor, should have been more than aware of things like ordinances, land grades and things like that.
if you notice in the video, one of the affected homeowners passed out a copy of a notice of violation that the City did issue to the owner of the new house and then read an excerpt from an email in which the owner questions why he was issued it after he was told by a building official that they would not enforce the codes.
something smells awfully rotten here and it looks like the building department and the owner of the new house cut some sort of deal at the expense of the people who are flooding.
Anon@10:55 --
If you are implying what it sounds like you're implying, tread carefully. You're suggesting a very serious charge against both the building department and the property owner.
All I'm implying is it appears both the owner and the building department were aware of the flooding issue well ahead of the time occupancy was given. Though you raise a very interesting point PRU.
Anon@10:55 seems to be shedding light on something that needs exposure. WHAT IF the inspector told the contractor/owner that the rules would not apply. Isn't it still in the owner's interest to do it by the book because that is what the LAW says? Even if they both winked at the code ("I'm SHOCKED that a building inspector and a contractor might wink at each other, shocked I tell you!") doesn't it still fall on the contractor to cover himself by doing it right?
Good point Anon@9:28. I think it is important to also point out that the city can come back at any time and inspect a property for non-conformities, even is it has already been inspected and especially if a complaint is lodged.
Rules are rules. Nobody wants to see the city nickel and dime people to death, but when there is a major violation, one that is causing irreparable damage to a second party, the city needs to flex their muscles and enforce the codes. No matter how feeble those muscles may be. That's why we have codes, to protect people. And let's face it, shame on the builder/owner in this case. Apparently he is well aware of the damage he has imposed on his new neighbors and it looks as if he just doesn't care.
Forgive my ignorance. Does the city not issue a certificate of occupancy? Is that not a part of the proceedures in PR? I mean maybe I am off base but if someone is building a new structure they have to submit plans, right? Those plans are reviewed and approved by the city, right? Upon completion of the project the city either issues or does not issue a certificate of occupancy, right? So in effect the city says go ahead with your project. If this is the house I think it is we are talking about a very big house. The inspectors would have had to be on and off that site many times during the build. They would have had to OK the original plans including grading. Upon completion of the project they review everything and give it the stamp of approval - a certificate of occupancy. How on earth do they go back to this person when nothing on that property has changed since completion and tell him he is in violation?? I mean if I were that person, I would call my lawyer.
If you have following this saga, you would know that the final survey does not match the original plans by a long shot. As you can see by earlier posts, the city issued a notice of violation to the builder and then told the builder not to worry about it because they weren't going to enforce. The city issued an occupancy permit without any of the work being performed.
If anyone should get a lawyer it should be the people who are flooding. But why should they have to spend the money to do that when they are supposedly protected by the city codes.
If you watch the video the building dept guy Steve says he has decided he isn't enforcing code 15-1- subsection B, he is the same guy mentioned by the neighbor flooding later in the video, I think the whole issue here is the building department is weak on enforcement and probably under qualified to hold their current job, Carrie Davis the Department head has been let go, maybe things will change, if you have codes either enforce them or let chaos rule, there seems to be something wrong with this situation
amen to that, brother or sister
Post a Comment