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."
"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".
I enjoyed your comment about parking in the wrong place during a snow ban. How many derelict properties do we have in SJ that owners from out of town are not being punished to do something about? In the 4 years this building sat idle, were there any fines imposed? This is ridiculous and it needs to stop. SJ needs to take more pride in its cityscape instead of having a patchwork of eyesores mixed with buildings that have been taken care of. It's a bad first impression for anyone who visits this city.
ReplyDeleteIt is strange the building seemed secure and yet was where it is alleged the fire started. If th cause was mischief the owners should be held accountable. If they made the building 'secure' they obviously didn't go a good enough job. Since it sounds as though it was not in a state of good repair or even able to be rehabilitated, the next course of action is demolition. It shouldn't be on the City to bear these costs, or the SJFD to do monitoring or checks. The City will tear it down and charge the owner, which is exactly who should be paying.
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is enforcement of bylaws. The City needs to get some teeth into its inforcement of derilict properties. It is the same with Heritage. People ignore the bylaw and there is very little recourse. Let's make some strong examples of the people ignoring the City directions and fine them in a huge way, make it hurt for them. That way perhaps people won't be so cavalier about ignoring City instruction.
The question I have is why the city has not been enforcing its own bylaws. Is this not or could it not be a revenue neutral or revenue generating activity that supports good order, confidence in our city, and fair treatment of all?
ReplyDeleteThe city is more interested in collecting fines than it is in safety.
ReplyDeleteQ: Massa may I fix up my property?
ReplyDeleteA: Pay us a % of the job, and then we may order you to do it again if you don't do it our way regardless if you way is better and safer.