I just noticed a table on the city web site that contrasts two North Avenue demolitions, one in 2010 and the recent one in 2015. The table goes point by point over five pages, ending with the question of whether City Council approval is needed for an emergency demolition and the answer, no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Setting everything else aside, the biggest question is - You have a Demolition Company submitting a bid $4,500 higher than a Real Estate Agency that has no credentials, equipment, crew, experience, and a dozen other reasons they have no business even submitting a quotation - it's a NO BRAINER as to who should be awarded the contract.
ReplyDeletePlease remind me which project should be investigated. Both jobs were awarded to the lowest bidder. The protocols were clearly not followed to the letter in one of those examples. Hmmm... Guess which one.
ReplyDeleteThe attempt to focus on a difference regarding how some now obscure prior event was managed and how the current event unfolded appears to be a sad effort to divert attention from the facts.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, it is illogical to award demolition work to a Real Estate company. Its like needing your appendix removed and having a dentist perform the surgery, justifying it by saying that the dentist has some peripheral knowledge of matters medical. . Yates can point to his experience performing renovations and construction relating to residential and commercial buildings. Demolition is a hazardous specialty Trade unrelated to the character of the work previously performed by Yates. The proof is that Yates subcontracted the work to B&B Demolition who does appear to have the appropriate credentials. However, as the Prime Contractor Yates was not relieved of the obligation to provide a General Labiality Policy insuring third parties against Property Damage and Personal Injury arising from Yates performance of the work. It appears that B&B does in fact have insurance. B&B has indemnified Yates. The indemnification does not include the City. It appears that Yates does not have the specified insurance. In the Yates /City contract Yates has indemnified the City which means that Yates is obligated to pay any damages assessed against the City and to pay the legal costs of any defense which the City might incur in defending a suite. As it stands now it appears the City is exposed in this area.
Regarding the excuse that the "Emergency" warranted the haste in which the work was awarded seems questionable since the "Emergency' had been bouncing around for 2 years. The most recent demand to demolish the building was 3 weeks old when the demolition occurred. Three weeks was ample time to make formal advertisement, receive the bids from "Qualified " contractors, that is, those experienced in demolition work. The bids could have been opened publically, simultaneously, at a prescribed location.
The Mayor's spin on" by hand" is completely unacceptable. The instruction that proscribed demolition by crane or ball clearly indicate that no dynamic method could be used. What occurred was that the demolition was performed by dropping a spud
( heavy steel weight) though the building". This is a substitute for a wrecking ball." By hand", as the Mayor suggests, is not 2 elderly ladies chipping away with knitting needles. The phrase refers to laborers with pneumatic hammers chipping away blocks of brick, or laborers using sledge hammers and chisels to break out the masonry. The masonry rubble is then dumped down chutes, bucketed, or manually carried to the street level. All of this in a controlled manner. In addition, suitable barricades, bulkhead, nets, and if necessary temporary platforms ( bridges) are constructed to protect adjacent structures and pedestrians from falling debris. Yates citing the protection he afforded as plywood and rubber tires on the roof of the adjacent building is rather like putting a paper napkin over your head in a hurricane to keep dry.
The contract also specifically states that nonpayment shall be made to Yates until all claims are settled. this provides the City with justification for not making a progress payment until matters are resolved. it also says that he contract can be canceled for the convenience of the City. The danger is past and someone else can remove the debris. Bill Kruse
According to another post, Frank Cretella took ownership on March 27, 2015, by entry of judgment for strict foreclosure. The city now has an owner it can contact, work with, and ultimately hold responsible for the condition of the property as he is not unknown around City Hall. Mayor Mapp should update current ownership on page 5 of his fact sheet.
DeleteBut Mommy Billy did it first !!
ReplyDeleteThey can call it an 'emergency demolition' if they choose. The emergency is the fancy footwork of a special meeting, four document dumps on the City website, and several excuse-laden blog posts. The demolition is this whole business blowing up in their face.
ReplyDeleteA wise lady said this. I think it applies to this piece as well. "the public will likely hear more of the same on May 4 and 11. The primary is June 2 and then the rhetoric may simmer down until after Labor Day, when the Nov. 3 general election follies begin. Maybe by then somebody will have reviewed the council's own Rules of Order and the sound of the gavel will be heard in the land."
ReplyDelete