Was just thinking about we have been told in the past by our local politicians about how time is required for negotiating and working with business owners...(I am recalling NCP for starters)

Something tells me there may be a lawsuit brewing...maybe more depending on how this demolition goes...

Our city engineer can't be certain of the exact specs of the site. The owner is awaiting an engineering report and the insurance company wants a copy and three quotes...but city council goes ahead anyway.

How do you spell injunction?? How can one go ahead with tenders on property you DO NOT own? How can you go ahead with a demolition project without the proper reports, inspections and insurance company nod?

Oh...hang on...it is the cart before the horse again...almost forgot...city council is great for that :(

If it does go as far as a lawsuit and it goes against the city it should be those on city council who voted for the demolition who should be held responsible. Its about time that elected officals should be held accountable in more ways than just in the polls.

I agree tiny - something stinks here. As it turns out, the demolition crew is not ready to go today as planned, yet the city cannot give the owner one more day to obtain his own engineer's report. Also, from another article, the job was awarded to a company for $46,000 (ish) and that this does not take into consideration the possibility of abestos? Shouldn't this have been investigated and factored into the price before the job was awarded? Everyone knows that dealing with insurance companies can be difficult and that these things do not move quickly. It is a long process. I'm not sure exactly what they want the man to do? Regardless of whether or not he owes taxes, this situation is something beyond his control and he is going to be penalized for it. Perhaps since the city's engineer cannot confirm the exact specs of the site, they should be required to obtain 2 more reports and get an idea of what they are really looking at.

I don't know - something just doesn't sit right with me. Just my humble opinion.

Do we really want to give the owner time to get a report? If the report says the remaining structure is sound then the owner is gonna let that eyesore sit there for years. Does anyone want that?

Born,

No we don't, but, I don't think thats an issue. Everyone knows it is unsound, it boils down to money. What if the insurance company doesn't cover this now, who is going to pay? Us or the owners? Either way it isn't right. He should have been given the time.

the insurance company will proably pay the lowest estamate for the demolition who is on the hook for the rest is anyones guess hopefully not the taxpayer

Nothing is simple anymore. Only lawyers like that.