sparks wrote:
The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.
mattlap wrote:
Every other quote was 80% or more higher than his with 4 different quotes shown. Darren quoted $5000, and the other quotes ranged from $9500 to what looks like over $20,000 from Gluth (hard to read but it is 5 digits and looks to start with a 2).
So tell me how the next nearest quote is almost double? Either the other contractors are price gouging or Mr Taylor has found a way to cut corners.
In economics R= P*Q (Revenue = Price * Quantity). Is he receiving enough leads through his code enforcement sources or the clerks office that he can reduce price and still attain revenue? That is where he is likely using his position to further his business over other contractors.
Are other contractors allowed to drive along with code enforcement? My guess is probably not ........and that alone creates an unfair and unethical situation.
sparks wrote:
Matt, where in the documents did you see something that said a contractor was driving along with code enforcement? I did see a document that referred to incident that happened when Mrs. Moreno-Avalos was in court after pressing criminal charges against her former tenants. She expressed concern for her personal safety and an officer of the court escorted her to her car.
There are always property owners whose business model is to acquire properties and rent them out without repairing and maintaining them. They believe it is less expensive to pay fines than to make capital improvements on their rental properties. Eventually, after years of neglect, they can no longer be rented and the owners walk away from them, forcing the neighbors to live next to an abandoned,blighted building. You can see some of these "investors" every thursday at 2:00 pm in Hammond City Court. It is the job of the building department to force these people to bring their buildings up to code so they don't represent a hazard to the community.
And in this case, I haven't checked when the plaintiff first purchased this property, but she spent $5,500 in electrical work March 14th, 2000 and $8,500 in drywall, floor, bathroom, doors, December 14th, 2000.
Yes Sparks some property owners have such a business model, but it appears in this case this woman spent just under $15,000 in repairs in 2000.
She also wanted to put on a roof, but the licensed hammond roofing contractor was denied the permit.
As to the notation when city officials came together to the plaintif's house, I believe there is more than one notation. the easiest one to find is found in the above document, found in the plaintiff's federal court filing, one of the submitted documents. The case number, document number and page number are in blue sparks.
So per the plaintiff, they came to the house together. Hmmmmm.
We know Ms. Kimmie worked for code enforcement. What is Mr. Taylor's position? Code enforcement assistant, as the plaintiff believed him to be or city employee, or court employee?
Per plaintiff, Mr. Taylor told me, if you let me do your roof for the $5,000, I promise you I will take care of Ms. Kim Nordhoff, I will take her off your back. I promise you she will not bother you anymore, you will not have any more problems with her.
Is Ms. Kimme a licensed attorney? Did she help plaintiff's tenants fill out paperwork acting as a licensed attorney?
What ever happened to the legal clinic?
Unethical?
Criminal?
or Both?
Isolated incident only with this contractor?
Or is this happening on a broader scope with other contractors who have this reported close connection?
most of what you posted on this thread shows up as a question mark surrounded by a small blue box that doesn't open when I click on it. If you are too stupid to post a link like this-
that readers can easily view, that's your problem. According to the assessor's site, the property was transferred to Ms. Moreno-Avalos on 3/5/2003 so the work that was done on the property was done by the previous owner. As far as not be able to pull a permit, that is standard procedure for any building that is on the repair or demolish list. By ordinance, any building needing repairs that exceed 50% of the value of the structure can be brought before the Board of Public Works to either be repaired or demolished. If the owner wants to repair the building, they post a bond with the city equal to the cost of demolition and sign a contract where they agree to bring the entire building up to current building codes within a certain time frame,typically 6 months. Once a building is on the repair or demolish list, no building permits are issued until the owner signs the repair agreement and posts the bond.
You are on the wrong side of this issue, from my point of view. When the city removes dilapidated buildings, property values rise and crime drops. Does your vendetta against the Mayor prevent you from seeing how important the Inspections department is to the future of the city?