"Emergency Demolition"

[iloveionia]

Well, the house is gone now.  
And truth is, whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not, it was demolished according to the 500 (don't know number,) code.  
There were 2 structural reports that said "unsound."  
The letter of the written law was followed.
Period.
Safety is in the hands of the Chief of MCCD, no one else.  And according to the present code, she did her job.  
Period.  

NOW.  That said, we must focus on learning from this and what changes and collaboration in the city can occur to prevent what some believe to be unnecessary.  

My house on Ionia was condemned for 10 years.  Gutted.  A mess.  A MESS.  They demolished a rear service porch, and the back part of the house split in half!!!  My house had to be jacked up and put back together!!!!  The front porch had 2 piers and it was collapsing.  My house was certainly unstable, but I took the route of stabilizing it, but know that I didn't have to, I could have legally had it demolished according to the code (safety.)  

It would be nice if structural reports could offer alternatives to demolition.  Okay, the structure is unstable, but by doing (fill in the blank,) it could be structurally sound and not be a safety risk.  

Just saying.  I don't like the fact that this house is gone.  But truth is the written code was followed.  It's just a matter of closing in on the "loop hole" as some may call it.

[acme54321]

Who paid for this demo?  I am assuming the taxpayer?

[iloveionia]

No.
The property owner of 1612 Market paid for the demolition. 
Not the city.

[strider]

The problem is not really with code enforcement.  Their mission is public safety and their concern is normally "unsafe to live in".  We are hearing them claim houses are "unsafe to walk by" and they do not have the expertise to decide that.  Nor apparently do the structural engineers they use.  It can be a safe bet that any structure can be called unsafe with any damage what so ever, so an owner or the city paying for a engineer to confirm a structure unsafe is a no brainier.  It is the historic nature of these houses and understanding how they can be fixed that should be used here and it is not. That is what we need to be changing, the criteria used to evaluate these houses.  Only that will prevent another Market street from happening.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

regarding the concept ov 'unsafe to walk by', has any house in springfield (or, for that matter, anywhere) ever fallen on someöne walking by?  i'm just kind ov curious how these determinations are made.  between work and my explorations, i've been in some really awful structures, but i've never seen anything bad enough that i felt uncomfortable even beïng near the place.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I think you guys are forgetting the reality of the world we live in.  Go to the hospital and tell a doctor you have a headache.  You will have blood tests, ekgs, ct scans, etc... just in case you have more than a headache.  This way the doctor is covered in the event of you falling dead in the street as you walk out the door.

The same rule is applied when you bring and engineer in to look at a structure.  Their personal opinion might be that it's OK, maybe add a support beam, but their professional opinion will always lean towards CYOA.  What happens if they say the structure is sound and it gets hit by a 100mph gust of wind and falls over? 

They're just protecting themselves.  And I don't know any engineer that is ever happy with the way something 'is', it can always be improved upon - and this comes from building that they themselves engineered.  The moment it was going up - I wish I had added [insert more or this] or I wish I had [insert building method] differently.

[iloveionia]

It is the historic nature of these houses and understanding how they can be fixed that should be used here and it is not. That is what we need to be changing, the criteria used to evaluate these houses.  Only that will prevent another Market street from happening.

+1

[ChriswUfGator]

I think you guys are forgetting the reality of the world we live in.  Go to the hospital and tell a doctor you have a headache.  You will have blood tests, ekgs, ct scans, etc... just in case you have more than a headache.  This way the doctor is covered in the event of you falling dead in the street as you walk out the door.

The same rule is applied when you bring and engineer in to look at a structure.  Their personal opinion might be that it's OK, maybe add a support beam, but their professional opinion will always lean towards CYOA.  What happens if they say the structure is sound and it gets hit by a 100mph gust of wind and falls over?  

They're just protecting themselves.  And I don't know any engineer that is ever happy with the way something 'is', it can always be improved upon - and this comes from building that they themselves engineered.  The moment it was going up - I wish I had added [insert more or this] or I wish I had [insert building method] differently.

Occam's Razor, Westsider, Occam's Razor...

Think about it. Isn't it more likely that the real glaring problem is probably the the profit-motive of our present corporatized healthcare system? If you follow the history on this, the rise in healthcare costs coincided almost exactly with the sudden expansion of the huge hospital chains. So what's more likely, that some legalese conspiracy theory is in play, or that the hospital makes more money billing the insurance carriers for bloodwork, EKGs, and all of that for as many people as they can? It's not as though we don't know this is going on, we just busted one of these huge corporate chains that bought up all the hospitals padding their bills by $1.3 Billion in Florida alone. And we were so outraged we elected its CEO governor, LMFAO. But that's another debate entirely. Anyway, if you really think it's about some blanket fear of being sued, then walk in there and tell them you have no insurance (in Florida, they're required to treat you anyway) just as an experiment, and watch how little they offer you compared to your normal experience.

I mean, come on. These people are just blatantly bloating their own profit margins and blaming it on everything other than the fact that, if they didn't send the insurance companies huge bills, they wouldn't receive huge payments. Let's boil it back down to the actual cause here. Legal expenses are less than 2% of total healthcare costs, and there has been a 114% increase in healthcare costs over the past 10 years. You are welcome to focus on that 2% all you like, but wouldn't it be just a bit more effective to focus on the other 112% of the problem? lol

And regarding these old houses, the same thing is going on. This isn't some CYA consipiracy, it's that the present state of the preservation regulations and municipal code are set up so that an owner who wants a place gone, in this case because he wants a larger yard, can just call in however many engineers it takes until he finds one that needs the money and is willing to say whatever he wants. Which is pretty easy these days, the construction business isn't exactly booming. Then it's just a matter of submitting it and because he's technically followed the letter of the vague regulations, the structure comes down regardless of whether there was actually anything wrong with it.

When it comes to this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out what's going on. Follow the money.

FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure, so that these demolition requests aren't considered solely on the basis of an opinion paid for by the very same guy who wants it demolished in the first place. Kind of a ridiculous conflict of interest there...

[iloveionia]

FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure

Yes.  And the criteria should be absolutely different for old homes.  They are indeed built different from today's standards.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Occam's Razor, Westsider, Occam's Razor...

I'll refer to:

Hickam's dictum which succinctly states that "patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please". It is often statistically more likely that a patient has several common diseases, rather than having a single rarer disease which explains their myriad symptoms. Also, independently of statistical likelihood, some patients do in fact turn out to have multiple diseases, which by common sense nullifies the approach of insisting to explain any given collection of symptoms with one disease. These misgivings emerge from simple probability theoryâ€"which is already taken into account in many modern variations of the razorâ€"and from the fact that the loss function is much greater in medicine than in most of general science. Because misdiagnosis can result in the loss of a person's health and potentially life, it is considered better to test and pursue all reasonable theories even if there is some theory that appears the most likely.

This can apply to both the doctor or the engineer example that I used above.  Either way, it's still CYA.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well, I think you missed the point of my post somewhat. But let me ask you this then, since your quote clearly demomstrates that the medical profession feels the testing is needed to rule out multi-cause symtoms, is that actually "Covering Your Ass" or just providing proper treatmemt? After reading that I kind of take issue with your assessment, as I thought you were referring to clear instances of overcharging (which happens often) I didn't realize you were apparently redefining basic sound diagnostic procedures as wasteful.

I was referring to some of these for-profit private providers charging for a $3k MRI for a hangnail, I wasn't referring to a test necessary to rule out or narrow down potential causes. This kind of changes things.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well, I think you missed the point of my post somewhat. But let me ask you this then, since your quote clearly demomstrates that the medical profession feels the testing is needed to rule out multi-cause symtoms, is that actually "Covering Your Ass" or just providing proper treatmemt? After reading that I kind of take issue with your assessment, as I thought you were referring to clear instances of overcharging (which happens often) I didn't realize you were apparently redefining basic sound diagnostic procedures as wasteful.

I was referring to some of these for-profit private providers charging for a $3k MRI for a hangnail, I wasn't referring to a test necessary to rule out or narrow down potential causes. This kind of changes things.

It's kind of one in the same i.m.o. with the medical field.  Yes, they will charge for every test they run, but they can justify it because of their basis of 'proper treatment' or 'no stone left unturned' - whichever theory you subscribe to.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah and then add the profit motive in and it gets nauseating, I have been testy on this issue ever since channel 4 busted OPMC here in town for charging a sick woman $70 for a single aspirin, and $18 per pair of latex gloves.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

yep, and I totally agree, but the only defense it to a.) pay out of the ass for health insurance or b.) don't have insurance and don't pay the bill.

[sheclown]

And regarding these old houses, the same thing is going on. This isn't some CYA consipiracy, it's that the present state of the preservation regulations and municipal code are set up so that an owner who wants a place gone, in this case because he wants a larger yard, can just call in however many engineers it takes until he finds one that needs the money and is willing to say whatever he wants. Which is pretty easy these days, the construction business isn't exactly booming. Then it's just a matter of submitting it and because he's technically followed the letter of the vague regulations, the structure comes down regardless of whether there was actually anything wrong with it.

When it comes to this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out what's going on. Follow the money.

FWIW, the way to fix this problem is to come up with a uniform set of criteria to judge the actual condition of a structure, so that these demolition requests aren't considered solely on the basis of an opinion paid for by the very same guy who wants it demolished in the first place. Kind of a ridiculous conflict of interest there...

...and there you have it.