- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Worker's body visible at Hard Rock site
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:36 am to fightin tigers
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:36 am to fightin tigers
quote:
If a Liberal can be blamed it will be the route taken.
I didn't know Trump was a liberal.
0
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:39 am to Pedro
quote:
Now the city acting like they couldn’t fix the tarp for the few hours they did was also completely stupid.
That's the thing. It's not the city's problem to fix. The city shouldn't have to fix the tarp. But, because the developer and GC are POS, and don't care, the city has to step in and do it.
Add this to the list of 100,000 things that the developer has run away from, instead of dealing with the mess they, and their GC, made.
Remember, the GC owner is also an investor in the project.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:40 am to fightin tigers
Are you planning the protest?
Protesters plan to rally in front of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel construction site on Friday afternoon before marching to City Hall to deliver a clear message: Hold accountable those responsible for the Oct. 12 deaths of three workers, and take measures to prevent unsafe working conditions.
Protesters plan to rally in front of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel construction site on Friday afternoon before marching to City Hall to deliver a clear message: Hold accountable those responsible for the Oct. 12 deaths of three workers, and take measures to prevent unsafe working conditions.
This post was edited on 1/23/20 at 9:40 am
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:41 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Everyone is also referencing government buildings. Murrow building and WTC both had deep pockets for cleanup efforts. The owner of this building doesn't exactly have a reason to spend a lot of money or make this quick. Thinking about it earlier part of the reason the city hasn't taken over could be due to private property laws or even because the city doesn't have the funds to pay for demolition. Speaking of Oklahoma City, bodies were left in due to the inability to rescue. Only recovered once demolition made it possible.
I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the city has the right and responsibility to seize and or demolish hazardous buildings and homes. You think the owner would be allowed to just leave a building in the middle of the city that could collapse at any moment and they city just has to sit by and allow it?
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:43 am to tgrbaitn08
A protest?
fricking hipsters.
fricking hipsters.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:47 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
That's the thing. It's not the city's problem to fix. The city shouldn't have to fix the tarp. But, because the developer and GC are POS, and don't care, the city has to step in and do it.
Someone needs to let the fire cheif know that it's not the city's problem to fix
quote:
“I cannot emphasize enough that the city will remain in control of this,” McConnell said.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:47 am to TigerNlc
quote:
I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the city has the right and responsibility to seize and or demolish hazardous buildings and homes
Probably not as easy a solution as the city taking it.
Kalis hasn't abandoned the property, so he would probably fight it in court, that would delay the demolition even further, then the city would have to figure out how to demo it (pay for it).
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:48 am to upgrayedd
quote:
A protest?
fricking hipsters.
yesh the dude that owns Mollys is the organizer
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:48 am to TigerNlc
quote:
I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the city has the right and responsibility to seize and or demolish hazardous buildings and homes. You think the owner would be allowed to just leave a building in the middle of the city that could collapse at any moment and they city just has to sit by and allow it?
The developers actually recently asked the city for permission to demolish three nearby historic buildings that they also own.
If the city seized the collapsed building, these POS would sue the city in every way and tie this thing up in court for years. That's just how they are.
The city is waiting for the developer to do the "right thing" but the developer has never done the "right thing" in his life, so fat chance he starts now.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:48 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
That's the thing. It's not the city's problem to fix. The city shouldn't have to fix the tarp. But, because the developer and GC are POS, and don't care, the city has to step in and do it.
A lot of people live in a place where big business is evil and the government needs to save them.
This post was edited on 1/23/20 at 9:49 am
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:50 am to fightin tigers
Why not just saw the guy’s legs off so that they’re not hanging over the ledge?
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:51 am to GeorgeTheGreek
That would be disrespectful.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:51 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
The city is waiting for the developer to do the "right thing" but the developer has never done the "right thing" in his life, so fat chance he starts now.
Exactly. It isn't like the state is going to withhold some sort of license from him.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:52 am to fightin tigers
I guess what I don't understand is why the city hasn't declared the building a public nuisance, demolished it, and put a lien on the property for the costs of demolition. All of this procedure is laid out in section 104 of the city's building code.
ETA: They may have begun this process quietly, to be fair to the city.
ETA: They may have begun this process quietly, to be fair to the city.
This post was edited on 1/23/20 at 9:56 am
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:54 am to TigerstuckinMS
Probably the legal battle that would ensue.
Also, if the developer is going to foot the bill upfront it is easier to pay for than filing suit to get the money back.
Anyone have a cleanup projection? $50MM?
Also, if the developer is going to foot the bill upfront it is easier to pay for than filing suit to get the money back.
Anyone have a cleanup projection? $50MM?
This post was edited on 1/23/20 at 9:55 am
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:55 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Someone needs to let the fire cheif know that it's not the city's problem to fix
Chief Mustache is a clown.
I know a number of NOLA firemen and they all can't stand him. He's a power-hungry tard.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:56 am to LSUFanHouston
Has anyone, besides this board, asked and received an answer why he is so involved?
Still considered a recovery effort?
Still considered a recovery effort?
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:56 am to fightin tigers
quote:
The owner of this building doesn't exactly have a reason to spend a lot of money or make this quick.
I can understand that the only reason the owner would want ti done quickly is to start bringing in revenue and theoretically he's not "losing" money yet, just not making any.
That said, is he not, or can he not be, held liable for losses that nearby businesses incur? I know the Saenger was closed for a good while and I'm sure there are other businesses adjacent to the site who can easily claim diminished profits/business.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:58 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
I guess what I don't understand is why the city hasn't declared the building a public nuisance, demolished it, and put a lien on the property for the costs of demolition. All of this procedure is laid out in section 104 of the city's building code.
Because the city doesn't want the liability if something goes FUBAR on the demolition.
This isn't an easy job.
Plus, like other have said, Kallais is such a POS that he would sue the city to stop them.
Posted on 1/23/20 at 9:59 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Has anyone, besides this board, asked and received an answer why he is so involved?
Still considered a recovery effort?
He took charge upon the day of collapse (which probably made sense) and just hasn't been replaced as the point person.
Page 15 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News