Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
Burned houses razed quickly
New demolition policy praised
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

    Mayor Gary McCarthy has found a new, lower-cost way to demolish houses in the city as soon as they burn down.
    He explained the new policy at Monday’s City Council meeting and received enthusiastic approval from council members.
    It started with the apartment building fire at 1461 State St. on Feb. 29.
    A man died in that fire. As fi refighters investigated, they called in a wrecking crew to lift debris so they could see how the fi re grew and the path it took through the building.
    McCarthy said it made no sense to have the crew demolish only part of the building.
    “When you’ve got them on scene, when you’ve mobilized the equipment, you don’t want them to just lift a few things,” he said.
    So as soon as the fi refi ghters had the evidence they needed, the crew went back in to finish the demolition.
    “It’s foolish to do this partial thing,” McCarthy said. “Do it. Finish the stuff off so you don’t have that negative influence on the neighborhood.”
    Through McCarthy’s years as an investigator for the District Attorney’s Office, he knew that wrecking crews could demolish buildings without first removing lead paint and asbestos if the demolition occurred during the fire investigation. As soon as city officials relinquish control of the site, any work must follow state environmental regulations, he said.
    Doing it without those hazardous material rules is far cheaper, mainly because it is much faster. The debris must be brought to a special landfi ll, which is more expensive, but that pales in comparison to the cost of weeks of asbestos removal.
    Also, McCarthy said, a quick demolition is far more likely to be covered by insurance.
    Usually, the owner is on scene during the fire or can be found through others at the scene. If city officials wait to discuss demolition costs later, he said, any insurance settlement money has usually “walked away” with the owner.
    Insurance covered the State Street demolition.
    Then a house burned at 605 Union St., near downtown bars. In that case, McCarthy learned there “might” be insurance. But the building was in foreclosure, so the policy might have lapsed.
    McCarthy persuaded Metroplex Development Authority to work with the city IDA to cover the $32,000 demolition cost if the insurance policy failed to pay it. Again, the building was demolished at the end of the fi re investigation.
    Just last week, McCarthy used the quick-demolition policy a third time when a boarded-up house on Windsor Terrace burned.
    In that case, there was no insurance. But the quick method cost only $13,000 to $14,000.
    The city has budgeted $100,000 for demolitions this year, and that budget was tapped for the job.
    “I wish the city had done this a decade ago,” McCarthy said of the policy. “It’s much cheaper.” .................>>>>....................>>>>......................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00903&AppName=1

They're talk about the "need" to "save money"

DUH, How about saving money by taking away all those 100% tax exemptions on all the properties downtown!!!!!!

And, as I've said, every landlord should be mandated to carry insurnace and name the city as a beneficiary on the policy.   They could work with the entities that handle Section 8 so that every one of those also would have to prove an insurance policy too.  

but nope, city dems wouldn't dream about doing something to benefit the neighborhoods and the financially struggling taxpayers.   Then they use this story to claim they are saving the taxpayers money, but remember, they are still making the taxpayers, the financially struggling homeowners in the ctiy, pay for the property & school taxes of the downtown properties which are owned by millioniares and billionaires who CAN WELL AFFORD TO PAY THEIR OWN TAXES.

Holy Sh*t....Are you kidding me???

Quoted Text

Doing it without those hazardous material rules is far cheaper, mainly because it is much faster. The debris must be brought to a special landfi ll, which is more expensive, but that pales in comparison to the cost of weeks of asbestos removal.

You mean to tell me that's it's cheaper if you don't follow all those pesky envirormental rules that you Libs cried and cried about to get passed?

OMG the hypocracy!

Quoted from BuckStrider

Holy Sh*t....Are you kidding me???



You mean to tell me that's it's cheaper if you don't follow all those pesky envirormental rules that you Libs cried and cried about to get passed?

OMG the hypocracy!

Which brings us to another issue! These 'fix'm up' homes that are city owned.....ya know....the ones they are trying to sell in hopes of getting them back on the tax rolls? Once they are purchased, who is going to monitor the environmental impact during renovations/remodeling for asbestos, lead etc..........? Will these properties be subject to a lead/asbestos inspection or can we assume they already have been?

"Through McCarthy’s years as an investigator for the District Attorney’s Office, he knew that wrecking crews could demolish buildings without first removing lead paint and asbestos if the demolition occurred during the fire investigation. As soon as city officials relinquish control of the site, any work must follow state environmental regulations, he said. "

Interesting.  Why did he know this through all his years of investigations?  

Also why is it that the tree grates that are being held as evidence of a theft cant be returned but a building that just burned can be torn down immediately.....