If Bill Reid was still on the City Council, he would likely pronounce the post-demolition chatter a lot of "who shot John."
All the relevant documents are on line and both bloggers and their readers have commented profusely. In a special meeting Monday, Council President Bridget Rivers called for an investigation of the timeline and process that ended with the governing body being asked to authorize a demolition contract and $250,000 tab after the fact.
All this comes as filing day for the June primary is imminent. Questions about the demolition are adding a layer of intrigue to an expected challenge to the party line from Mayor Adrian O. Mapp, former president and still the perceived standard bearer of the New Democrats. This is the year for the Democratic party to reorganize and 68 city committee seats are up for election. Those elected to the committee on June 2 will choose a party chairperson on June 8. Can Mapp pin the tail on the donkey and overcome Chairman Jerry Green's grip on local party control? Will his candidates prevail in the two council races on the ballot?
While waiting for the next episode of the demolition drama, we shall at least discover the cast of characters for the primary showdown on Monday. Both sides will undoubtedly challenge each other's nominees, so the list may not be final. But it is always interesting to see who takes what side in Plainfield. The deadline for filing is 4 p.m. in the City Clerk's office. (School board filing is in July.)
--Bernice
I wouldn't be so quick to say that "all the relevant documents are on line" just yet. Those that are leave a considerable number of questions unanswered. The UCC Notice of Imminent Hazard ordered the demolition by January 13th, 68 days before the building was taken down last Saturday. That in itself raises the question why city engineers Remington & Vernick, at some additional cost, were asked to do a structural analysis after the demolition order was issued. Their report, dating to February 2nd, came 48 days before the actual demolition. What sort of emergency is that? Even the Yates proposal, dated March 16th, came 12 days after the Rufus proposal, and was incomplete insofar as Yates had inadequate insurance coverage. Who other than Rufus and Yates was contacted? When were they contacted? Late February? What sort of emergency was that? Why was the HPC left out of the picture until the very last moment? Why was the City Council called for an after-the-fact special meeting when the order to demolish the building preceded a slew of Council meetings in January, February, and March? What sort of emergency was that? At what point was Eric Watson, Phillip Izzo, or Rick Smiley in direct contact with the building's owner? Why, if such a dire emergency existed, was it not demolished within 24 hours of the owner's refusal to comply with the inspection order, even given adequate service of notice and an opportunity to appeal? All of which could have been accomplished in January.
ReplyDeleteCouncilman Storch, who is running for re-election, wrote the other day on his blog, also after-the-fact, that the North Avenue eyesore kept development and renovation away from the block. We "should be talking about the potential this demolition has created." How sad and pathetic is that statement? There is all that going on more or less behind the building, around the corner, across the street, and down the block. Good try changing the subject Councilor.
Which gets to the politics. What difference does it make who we vote for, or what label the candidate runs under, if all we get are the same games, and the same sordid hush-hush goings-on from our public officials?
Bravo!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWell said Mr. Goldstein
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that I had a call for a survey that sounded like a Jerry instigated thing and asked loaded questions. I even asked the caller who was paying for the survey and who developed it. It was biased against the mayor and others not on Jerry's wish list. So much for dirty politics in Plainfield. I even told the caller that I would be on the ballot in June and they still wanted to do the survey. There was nothing on it that could be measurable or prove anything. I have a master in psycholy and know about tests and measurment tools and how they should be developed. This was not one of those we would consider fair and unbiased. Sharon and her ilk are still playing dirty and the people of Plainfield pay the price.
ReplyDeleteBob Bolmer
The real question should be why Sharon allowed thie building to continue to deteriorate as long as she was mayor, leaving the mess for Mapp to clean up. Ye gods, look at that photo--she's purring.
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate earlier posts. Any fair minded review of what transpired compels one to conclude that inappropriate manipulations resulted in Yates Realty receiving a proceed notice from the Planifield Department of Public Works. To confirm the March madness, Yates submitted a Commercial Lines Insurance certificate which is irrelevant regarding the type of insurance required to perform the work and protect the City interest. Without further examination this bizarre conduct warrants an investigation, not by a hired attorney, rather, by the County Prosecutor with power to subpoena and skill to conduct a thorough probe. In the alternative, it is suggested that the City offer to accept the resignation of the party responsible for the City's bizarre conduct, have Yates sign a release, without payment, which should not be painful since they haven't dome anything, pay B& B Demolition on a quantum meruit basis for work performed, and contract the removal f the remaining demolition debris with a qualified excavator, or perform the work with City forces. This solution would result in minimum cost, perhaps 1/3 of the $250,000 currently contemplated. Further, the negotiated settlement would avoid continued adverse publicity with attendant embarrassment to the City. And, relive the Council and Administration of months of distraction with the rancor that will evolve. The parties who executed this travesty should be grateful to be allowed to walk away rather than facing the possible outcome of an investigation. B & B should be glad to receive payment rather than be embroiled for months as the dispute rages. The only dissatisfaction that might arise is within the City Council because they would be deprived of the joy off pointing fingers, raging, and running in circles. Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteGreat photo, Bernice--they're purr-fect together!
ReplyDeleteI didn't take the photo - it is what might be called "found art" too good not to be seen.
DeleteAnd worth much more than a thousand words!
Delete