Recently 2 firefighters were killed in Chicago when checking a burning building for any homeless inside and the wall and roof collapsed on top of them and killed them.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-firefighter-funeral-preparatio20101223,0,2833112.story
Chicago has a very passive tear down policy even if a building is in arrears on taxes. This leads to many, many buildings becoming impromptu homeless shelters and in many cases they become hosts of fires, either by arsonists, or by homeless attempting to warm up.
On average Chicago has about 10 "abandoned warehouse/factory" fires a year, most of which are put out, but every so often they injure or kill a first responder.
This leads me back to Jacksonville and their aggressive tear down policies. When was the last time you heard of a JFRD being killed by a fire at an abandoned anything? Preservation is preferable, perhaps there was a civic reason COJ is so aggressive in these tear downs?
- Avoids collecting homeless or squatters
- Prevents arson targets
- Avoids injury to first responders
If the building is properly mothballed and monitored, then the chances of vagrants occupying the building, decrease. I'm not in favor of tearing down, because vagrants, etc., might gain access and cause fires. Let's also make it clear, that the only reason the firefighters in Chicago went inside, was to check for vagrants, because the rear of the building had been compromised. Had the city code enforcement monitored the building, and it was then secured, the fire may not have happened.
Quote from: spuwho on December 24, 2010, 08:53:19 AM
Recently 2 firefighters were killed in Chicago when checking a burning building for any homeless inside and the wall and roof collapsed on top of them and killed them.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-firefighter-funeral-preparatio20101223,0,2833112.story
Chicago has a very passive tear down policy even if a building is in arrears on taxes. This leads to many, many buildings becoming impromptu homeless shelters and in many cases they become hosts of fires, either by arsonists, or by homeless attempting to warm up.
On average Chicago has about 10 "abandoned warehouse/factory" fires a year, most of which are put out, but every so often they injure or kill a first responder.
This leads me back to Jacksonville and their aggressive tear down policies. When was the last time you heard of a JFRD being killed by a fire at an abandoned anything? Preservation is preferable, perhaps there was a civic reason COJ is so aggressive in these tear downs?
- Avoids collecting homeless or squatters
- Prevents arson targets
- Avoids injury to first responders
Jacksonville's main problem with tearing everything down occurred in Springfield, and was motivated by infighting and personal squabbles, not any legitimate concern for public safety. Half of Riverside sat vacant for decades and wasn't torn down, and nor did it kill people. It really traces back to a select group of people. A lot of springfield was vacant for 50 years and wasn't torn down and didn't kill people. Most of the demolitions happened in the past 5 years, and were tied to personal agendas.
Outside of Springfield, the other disaster zones like lavilla were not really a vacancy problem, they were occupied neighborhoods that COJ demolished to make way for a golf course and later commercial development that never materialized.
^ticks me off.
This is so true.