The city spending money to tear down a rich landlord's property is more than some peeps on facebook can take. Doug wrote...
Someone please explain to me why the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for a building to be torn down, when the building is owned by Nat Hyman? Well Doug, because public officials have declared that the fire damaged building must be demolished immediately, and that sort of expedited action usually takes the city to implement. A private party would need a week just to gather the necessary permits.
Over the years the city has torn down buildings before, then collected from the property owner, it is far from an unprecedented action. There is however, added fuel to these speculations. The owner did himself run for mayor, and may be less than popular at city hall.
I expect that the flames against the landlord will continue to be fanned, both in the press and on facebook.
MM said:
ReplyDelete"...because public officials have declared that the fire damaged building must be demolished immediately, and that sort of expedited action usually takes the city to implement."
That might be the reason they give, but that's not the real reason.
City Hall is involved so that the price of the work can be inflated to an amount no reasonable person would pay, and so that overpriced work can then be given to the cronies (and future cronies) of those running City Hall.
If I remember correctly, a certain previous Mayor benefitted quite handsomely (in the form of campaign contributions and work on his home) from such an arrangement.
How quickly we forget.
By the way, I thought it was politically-motivated, and extremely unprofessional, for Ray O'Connell to call out Mr. Hyman by name at the City Council meeting last night.
ReplyDeleteWe had enough of that with the last Mayor, and I thought things were supposed to change.
unknown, I believe that people are incorrectly speculating that Hyman will not reimburse the city for the demolition. Likewise, I would not speculate that the city has any motive beyond public safety to expedite the demolition.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Michael.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteIf the paper and other media outlets had your institutional and historical knowledge of the city they could have provided such in their reporting, sadly they don't and they didn't. Clearly this led news readers and listeners to assume they were once again, for dubious reasons, once again going to pay through the nose.
Scott@9:16, i had a discussion this morning with an attorney who even assumed the worse. as a licensed landlord, the city has enormous jurisdiction over Hyman. this would include his current rental units, and any others that he might entertain developing in the future. although he might balk at the city trying to recoup any fire overtime and other charges normally borne by the taxpayers, and might find the demolition charges unreasonable as Unknown speculates, it is my opinion that he will make the city whole in regard to expenses from this unfortunate fire.
ReplyDeleteMM, I will take a quote from a mayor candidate to speculate here, the ASD should evaluated there land holdings"? That said tells the story of connections public and private sectors still infecting the local arena even with the indicted one soon to be at camp FED.
ReplyDeleteThan there is the two naysayers with public safety as a top priority.
Even wealthy people don't keep $1.5M in cash laying around. It would probably take Mr. Hyman longer to free up the cash than it would to get the demolition permits.
ReplyDeleteThat's too long to wait. The remains of that building are a major safety hazard, and it needs to be demolished ASAP.
Doesn't the property insurance cover this kind of loss?
ReplyDeleteMomma@10:14, he did not have the building insured. if he did, they would probably be speculating about arson.
ReplyDeleteInsurance companies generally don't cover abandoned buildings.
ReplyDeleteMM take a look at the video of council, I like corner calling out Zucal as if it were a political stunt to a black administrations car dropping said child off that is not insured to be in vehicle! Than we had top cop viewing for its neglect and deriliction of duty by OKing the picture depicting impropriety.
ReplyDeleteNot than anyone would want a child to be hurt in a vehicle accident, but the city and its insurers don't insure anyonelse but the opperator of the city vehicle?
There are severak unsafe buildings in the Lehigh Valley and it normally takes ages for the city to get owners to get reimbursement when owners delay by ignoring summonses. I hope someday tht city can take prompt action without breaking the bank. I believe this to be a serious issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hyman will make good but not every owner is as conscientious. Out state senators and representatives and possibly the federal government should change the rules because unscrupulous owners can just delay a year and morw.