Saturday, April 11, 2015

Demolition Investigation To Be Launched


Monday's City Council agenda includes resolutions to initiate an investigation of the North Avenue demolition and to hire the firm of Weber Dowd Law, LLC to look into it.

The timeline:

Friday, March 20: Mayor Adrian O. Mapp calls a special meeting for Monday, March 23 with three resolutions on the agenda, one authorizing an "emergency demolition," another establishing an appropriation of $250,000 to pay for it and a third awarding an emergency contract to Yates Real Estate Inc. to do the demolition.

Saturday, March 21: The emergency demolition takes place, even though merchants were told it would happen on March 24. Falling debris destroys a restaurant in an adjacent building.

Monday, March 23: Late in the afternoon, Mapp releases all documents pertaining to the demolition. A council majority rejects all three resolutions at the special meeting and vows to investigate the circumstances of the demolition. Maria Rosa, owner of Mi Buenaventura for 32 years, says through an interpreter that her livelihood is now destroyed.

Debris remains at the site. A GoFundMe benefit for Maria Rosa has been established. Mayor Mapp has provided more information on the demolition. Blogs and the Courier News have reported on the story.

Monday's agenda also includes a closed session of the council to discuss "potential litigation," though it is unclear whether it concerns the demolition. The meeting is 8 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.

--Bernice

9 comments:

  1. The timeline really begins with the 2011 fire. It gets interesting when permit # 20120038 is issued in January 2012 to take down the building's 3rd story by hand. Nothing happened, and you can jump ahead to a certified letter sent to the owner at three different addresses on December 31, 2014, reminding him of the 2012 permit and inquiring of his intentions. That was followed on January 6, 2015 with a Notice of Imminent Hazard and an order to demolish the building by January 13th.

    The Mapp Administration has only released a small portion of the relevant documents, and several days ago posted a FAQ on the City's website to explain its recent actions. (http://plainfield.com/docs2015/Faqs_North_Avenue_Demolition_Project_3.21.2015.1.pdf). But what is clear is that the administration is covering up a large degree of negligence at best and possible criminal malfeasance at worst.

    Along with its current attempt to hire PMUA attorneys McManimon & Scotland as the City's Redevelopment Counsel, following last year's hire of Eric Watson (PMUA's former Executive Director) to lead the Department of PW&UD, the Mapp Administration is tripping all over itself to reward previous abuses with new money-making opportunities. Watson was the point-man on the North Avenue Demolition. McManimon & Scotland are fabricators of fact and opinion. This tag team has a 20-year track record of disdain for the citizens of Plainfield, so just what is Mayor Mapp up to? What is he thinking? What political calculations are now blowing up in his face?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Alan what do you think his calculations are ? And who's given him these dumb ass ideals.

      Delete
  2. They investigate this but when Sharon promoted her buddies and pray warriors to positions that didn't exist and put a strain on the city budget no one says a word and most of those were and are under investigation and ones in jail

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aren't most of the people on the Council the one's who think investigating millions of dollars missing from the last administration is a waste of taxpayer money. Funny how Jerry's kids think or don't think. We really need to clean house. I'm not saying the mayor handled this in the best way, but by comparison his administration doesn't even come close to the horrors performed by the Robinson-Briggs administration.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The first issue is the timeliness, or lack thereof in performing the "Emergency" demolition. The City would have been within its legal right to have ordered an instant demolition after having posted 24 hour notice. The manner in which this done is to select a qualified, registered, licensed demolition Contractor, issue a proceed notice, and pay the Contractor on a time and materials basis. For reasons uncertain the City procrastinated over 2 months. Having made the decision not to perform the work at the instant there was time prepare appropriate documents and to elicit competitive bids. Rather than composing a scope of work and outline of contractual conditions,
    which would have included the specific insurance requirements, the City purportedly chose to make calls orally to a handful of Demolition Contractors whose names they located in the Yellow pages. It should be noted that Yates Realty is not listed as either a Demolition Contractor, or any other type of Contractor. Yates is appropriately listed as what they are: A Realtor. While these events were transpiring the Administration failed to notify either the Council, whose approval was required to obtain the funds to pay for the demolition , or the Historic Commission which was required because the building is situated in an Historic District. The Planning Board received the notification of what was occurring the day prior to the demolition taking place, and 4 days prior to the time the demolition was scheduled to take place. Planning immediately replied and imposed the sensible requirement that since the building to be demolished was adjacent to, and shared a common with the neighboring building, that no crane. or headache ball should ne used, rather, the demolition should be performed by hand so as to preclude any damage to adjacent structures. Given that the condemned building was 3 stories high and the line of stores adjacent only 1 story, it might reasonably be assumed that when the upper stories were demolished by the gross method of dropping a heavy weight through the building that the debris just might decide to fall on top of the lower adjacent buildings and not uniquely direct itself to fall inward away from the existing buildings. By failing to grasp the obvious the adjacent buildings were almost immediately showered with debris and damaged.
    Absent any qualification to perform the work the invitation to, and selection of a Realtor to perform this work remains unexplained. Although one is tempted to form a rather obvious conclusion. The failure to require appropriate insurance coverage and an indemnification relieving the City of any responsibility for damages or injuries arising from the work is more explainable. Yates can't provide these insurances and it follows can not therefor provide an Indemnification. Could it be that that knowing that Yates could not comply the request was not made?
    Given that rather than proceeding instantly with the demolition, the excuse that all these bizarre events were caused because it was an "EMERGENCY", no longer holds water. Weber Dowd has a juicy bone to chew on. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why isn't the council looking into other areas of investigation before they spend our money? Have they looked into asking the Union County attorney, or the State's attorney to look into this. No, why should they? They have no clue what they are doing, and they bemoan that people are hurting. Well, they are right. We are hurting because of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great question. The State Attorney or Union County Prosecutor have the means and methods including subpoena power not available to a civil attorney. What the Council needs an attorney for is to properly determine how to finish the incomplete demolition, remove the demolition debris, resolve the contract such as it is with Yates, and attend to the prima facie claims of the damaged property owners. A great deal of sorting out to be done.

      Delete
  6. It would be interesting to see if that law firm or any of its employees made any campaign donations to the union county dems jerry green plainfield dem org or Bridgets campaign account may bet is this lawfirm didnt just show up

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does anyone think maybe this was all done deliberately so the contractor friends of the Mayor could build more apartments? The demolition company should pay to relocate and rebuild a new restaurant to replace the one it destroyed.

    ReplyDelete