Post Fire Defence By City Building Department Head

So why can't the response by City of Saint John officials take on a more empathetic tone to the concerns of the people living in the neighbourhood around Mecklenburg Street, the scene of the past weekend's devastating fire ? For a time yesterday it appeared that city officials were denying a work order had been placed against the property in 2009. Then they said there were subsequent orders; then that the 2009 order had resulted in the property owners being brought to court. And if indeed a work order against a property becomes "inapplicable" , when it becomes vacant, as stated yesterday by Amy Poffenroth, the city's manager of building inspections; then what other action can the city take ? 

I strongly support the idea that if a building owner is making timely progress on repairing a building and responding to a city work order, then flexibility should be shown in the process. But the situation at 70 Mecklenburg dragged on for nearly 4 years and the result was this devastating fire which destroyed the neighbouring building and left almost 2 dozen people on the street. The response by Poffenroth appears circuitous, defensive, and retaliatory. People living in the neighbourhood need re-assurance and the feeling that our staffers are protecting the interests of the greater good; not just getting bogged down in the "red tape". 

As I pointed out yesterday, Bill Edwards who is Poffenroth's predecessor and mentor, spent much effort several years ago stewarding a new set of laws that he felt allowed the building department to deal effectively with the issue of condemned and vacant properties. If Poffenroth now suggests that the new rules still aren't adequate, it would make everyone concerned, feel more assured if she pointed this out plainly and made some suggestions. If she feels her hands are tied publicly from this type of commentary, lets have the City Manager hold a press conference to address the issue from a cross department perspective, if indeed this challenge also includes the Legal Department, The Fire Department and others. An explanation and some reassurance would go along way this week to quell the concerns of spooked citizens of the South End. 

At the same time, the property at 134-144 Carmarthen Street has a similar work order that was placed against the property on May 15, 2009. It is still occupied and still in the hands of the same owners. It is in deplorable condition. Here is a photo of it taken Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013. Why hasn't action been taken to evacuate this building and board it up.What does Poffenroth have say say about this circumstance.

 Better still why can't the laws in place provide mechanisms that force a non-compliant, non-cooperating property owner to lose the property to public auction or public stewardship. Such transfer of ownership should also require that a new owner have the capacity to post performance bonds to ensure the property quickly gets repaired and re-inhabited. If all this is impossible or fails...only then should it be demolished. Long term vacancy and boarding up should NOT be allowed to occur  This may sound intrusive to some, but the province legislates that automobile owners have insurance and are subject to vehicle inspections. A safe place to live is every bit as critical to families as a safe vehicle. 

Fire in The"Hood" ; Lessons To Be Learned ?

Lets talk about the Mecklenburg fire for a moment. That block is over 75% occupied by owners; there is significant pride on that block by those citizens. The building that was the starting point of the inferno, has been vacant and boarded up for some time. Its owners are non-resident in the city of Saint John; they were served with work orders to repair that building almost 4 years ago; they have ignored their responsibility; they put people's lives in danger; these owners caused stress and fear amongst the good property owners of the neighbourhood. They should be held to account and the city should have done something much sooner to enforce the work orders and spare the citizens of the neighbourhood this frightening situation.

The work order was issued March 19. 2009. It is a public document, 14 pages long and highly detailed in its points, requirements, and the potential consequences. There are specific timelines outlined for compliance and significant penalties for non-compliance. It appears there was no pre-fire enforcement of the order, other than the emptying out of the building and it being "boarded up". If you happen to park your car in the wrong place during a snowban, the consequences are far more immediate and painful than the consequences and punishment afforded to these property owners. 

In today's Telegraph Journal, SJFD spokesperson Mark Wilson, District Chief  appears to excuse the work order by offering these comments 

" the building has been on the department's watch list since 2010. "It's been vacant for a while,"he said. 

There are about 120 buildings on the list that are monitored by fire crews every few days, or weeks, depending on their availability. 

He said the crews check to ensure those vacant buildings are secured - that doors and windows are boarded up, and no fire hazards are present. 

"Really, can we go around to all vacant buildings and tear them down? No,"Wilson said."However, what we can do is request the property owners to secure the properties. 

"You can't really just say, 'is the city going to come in and do a sweep?' You can't do that. These are private properties. We can work with them and make sure there is a due diligence on the owners to make it safe." He said this vacant structure was secure and didn't pose a hazard on the last check. 

"It was secured," he said."It was boarded up. As far as we know, the doors were locked, the windows were boarded up." He added the fire crews responding had to use forcible entry to get inside. " "

No part of the work order includes boarding up and monitoring the property by the SJFD. By acknowledging this "duty", does the District Chief lay open the possibility of liability by the SJFD. His remarks that ,"it was secure ", provide little re-assurance to the neighbourhood in light of the subsequent fire and displacement. 

The important thing to note in my view is that the work order was issued under the authority of the building department working with the guidance of by-laws enacted by the City. Although the work was done by the inspection department and the process followed; there was no legal action taken when the property owners refused to comply with the order. So for three years the neighbourhood compliance to city hall and lived in fear. 

Here are comments from this mornings TJ by neighbours and property owners living there:

 " Chris Patterson, who lives around the corner from the building, said when he was apartment-hunting a few years ago he looked inside 70 Mecklenburg. 

"I went to look at it and it was pretty gross, and so I was like 'no, there's no way I'm renting that,'" he said. "It's pretty dirty and slummy and stuff like that." He said a month later, the building was boarded up. 

Clyde Ouellette owns the building on the other side of the vacant building that was not damaged by the fire. He said he'd been concerned about the safety of his own property since the abandoned building was boarded up several years ago. 

"We all complained,"he said. 

"He did, I did, they did," he said, gesturing at the houses down the street."It should have been torn down the month that they boarded it up." Donald Irving, the owner of the apartment that was gutted in the fire, said he had also complained in the past. 

"I'm in a bad situation now," he said. "Bad luck for me." 

The legal department should have done its job; the fire department should not be forced to undertake monitoring of vacant buildings  ( even though I am sure they do that work from the perspective of community service and proactive effort to prevent fire ), residents need to be protected. 

And so on Monday , January 28, 2013, the City issued a demolition order for 70 Mecklenburg AND 76 Mecklenburg; both fire damaged beyond repair. Why couldn't the city have issued that order last week, for the one condemned building where the fire started; based on the 4 year old work order. BEFORE the neighbourhood was subjected to this terror, with 14 homeless now, a 100 year old historic streetscape now with a gaping hole in it, and a neighbourhood left nervously thinking about the "what ifs".