Thanks again, Rick, for setting the record straight. I’m sure that the city will look at this incident and with introspection push for the funding of the necessary code inspectors, fire marshal staff, etc. It really takes something like this to get more action. I’m sure this warehouse isn’t the only derelict building out there. Who is going to pay for it? I don’t know, but there will be a lot of pressure for the city to create the framework for greater action.
Yes, it’s the owner/operator that’s ultimately liable. But, without the necessary pressure on them, unscrupulous individuals (in my opinion) will continue to only look at the profit. Although something can be said about making money being these folks’ scruples.
This is not the 1st time that a major tragedy occurred because of neglect and not following the proper code and permit process. Everyone forgets about the Rhode Island Nightclub Fire. There is still litigation going on with that.
As I said earlier, I’ve been in clubs where the exits are narrow (but marked) and the occupancy is way more than should be allowed.
Very Respectfully,
Mark Lewack
Emergency Management Specialist (Coordinator)
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Facilities, Security and Emergency Management
1900 E Street NW, Suite 1300
Washington, DC 20415
(202) 606-5415 (Office)
(301) 807-8943 (Cell #2)
Make preparation in advance. You never have trouble if you are prepared for it"
- - Theodore Roosevelt
From: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com [mailto:californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:08 PM
To: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] No Building Inspectors Were in Oakland Warehouse for 30 years
That story is circulating through the media here too. And while it's appalling to us (even incomprehensible) it will and should become a side issue. The city did not create the Ghost Ship situation, they MAY have been aware of it but the ultimate liability will fall on the owner and occupants because they are ultimately responsible for allowing and creating it. The side issue will be used to distract (by media and in the court) but the city simply didn't cause it, they just didn't deal with it effectively. In short, the city won't be held liable as they didn't create it.
I'll presume that the city had neither the will to push inspections or the money to follow through (it takes staffing [engineers, inspectors, fire marshals aren't free], a LONG time, involves the court and costs a lot of money to pursue). Alas, it is not a unique situation. If you only have $10 in your wallet, do you buy food for the kids or do you spend it on new tires to get to work? There is only so much budget and so many things that need funds. If both can't be done, would one rather they arrest all the dope dealers or someone without a functioning smoke detector (both are crimes)?
We expect that simply because it's government, use from every penny is squeezed but refuse to see that there simply aren't enough pennies to take care of all the needs. Who's at fault there? Pay more taxes? I don't want to either, but expectations from most of the public is unrealistic. Generally speaking one DOES get the 'most bang for the buck' in government jobs and contracts and not every wish is granted. This is one HUGE crack to fall into, a black eye for the city.
Now poor funding itself is a crime, but isn't on the books, so we'll never see that tried in court. The truly appalling fact is that while most cities (counties, states too) are fiscally responsible with tax money, there just isn't enough to do a proper job and the public is unwilling to spend more. The public has some impression that just because it's government it is by default too expensive and lazy but people are people; try getting a job done from the private sector and one quickly learns that the government rates are in fact reasonable (and not any slower or quicker). In part because the government must follow all the rules (engineering study, permits, workers, insurance) while the private sector often lets things slide through the cracks. Nothing comes for free.
Back on point, the city isn't but fractionally liable but hasn't been able to change the situation for political and monetary reasons. The fault falls on the owner, who knew better, allowed it anyway and actually profited by allowing it (no repairs, with income). The users of the building will (if they survived) be held liable too, the remaining occupants (guests) were simply grossly ignorant (didn't know the risks). It casts doubt on the city ability certainly, but once again, they didn't create it.
This exact situation has been shown time and time again for at least the last 100 years in this country, with teeth gnashing and wailing each time. Laws were created but government is not allowed to be proreactive by limiting the budget and politicking behind the scenes. People generally aren't bright about these things, don't learn from previous experience (history) and the dollar is loud. This will happen again because the taxpayer can't outshout the political or property owners, aren't willing to truly finance the government and ultimately because people are willing to forget why it's important.
The penalties aren't effective (take the property burdening the government further, put the former owner in jail causing another financial burden to jail them, after reducing their bank accounts, IF you can find them). While it won't hold in court (or by the will of the people), the owner(s) should be tried for murder (not manslaughter) because they KNEW. My personal desired penalty for that involves a wood chipper; let the miscreant serve the public good as fertilizer; but that too is against the will of the public.
Rick
On 12/8/2016 7:14 AM, 'Lewack, Mark A.' Mark.Lewack@opm.gov [californiadisasters] wrote:
An article appeared in yesterday’s or today’s Los Angeles Times that no building code enforcement inspector has been in the warehouse for OVER 30 years. Seems to me that if the things that appeared in the article, the City bears some culpability (although, I assume, the owner/operator is going to bear the brunt of legal action) for the loss of life and the non-fireworthiness of the warehouse. In any case there were reports of violations concerning trash and other code violations, but I assume that no inspector set foot inside the building or the owner and residents cleaned up their act enough to get just a slap on the wrist from the city. It seems that if they did do a thorough inspection they would have shackled or sealed off the entrances long ago. I wonder if there will be criminal action by the city????
When I was in the Coast Guard, and if this were a waterfront facility, the owner/operators would have been ordered to cease and desist operations until they came into compliance with safety/facility regs. We’d also bring the local fire marshal/code inspector with us to add some teeth to the action(s).
Just my $.02. Please tell me again that I am wrong.
Here’s a link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-oakland-fire-inspections-20161207-story.html.
Very Respectfully,
Mark Lewack
Emergency Management Specialist (Coordinator)
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Facilities, Security and Emergency Management
1900 E Street NW, Suite 1300
Washington, DC 20415
(202) 606-5415 (Office)
(301) 807-8943 (Cell #2)
__._,_.___
Posted by: "Lewack, Mark A." <Mark.Lewack@opm.gov>
Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment