Quoted from Alva White

Because it's a criminal investigation. Just like any other criminal investigation where details aren't released because they don't want to jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation. For a self-proclaimed "intelligent person", I don't understand why you don't get it. It's a criminal investigation.

According to the police department it is NOT yet a criminal investigation.  

But does a code inspection have to do with a crime?  One tenant gets mad at another and starts a fire in that other's apartment?  What does that have to do with the owner of the building and whether the building is up to code.

However, if the alarms/sprinkler systems were not working and the city code people allowed the people to continue to live there even though their lives could be in jeopardy, then I think it could be the city code people are criminally liable.  

Let's see what happens when the tenants file claims against the city.  It will all be hush hush.  Just like the certiorari lawsuits against the city (which the city always loses) are kept hush hush (they don't include the information in the committee meeting agendas, they will appear on the agenda for the regular meeting in bullet form and are voted on in that "consent agenda" which is always "approved."  But are the taxpayers ever given the details?  Nope.  Shhhhh.

SCHENECTADY - The Jay Street fire, is now being considered a criminal investigation.

On Monday, prosecutors seized code enforcement records from the two buildings that burned.

This, as friends of loved ones continue to mourn.

Right now, the fire remains classified as an “open investigation.” They are saying criminal activity has not been determined, and documents are being preserved for their “potential evidentiary value.”

However, there was a noticeable and significant shift in the fire investigation. There seemed to be viewer investigators at the scene. There was also more attention focused on 100 Jay Street – mindful that all four bodies were located at 104 Jay Street where the fire presumably began.

New legal developments Monday in Schenectady's Jay Street fire: the District Attorney has now become involved in the investigation. Geoff Redick has the details.

SCHENECTADY, N.Y. -- As firefighters got their first look Monday at the second building that caught fire a week and a half ago, Time Warner Cable News was denied a similar look, inside city code enforcement records for 100 through 104 Jay Street.

Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy said,  ""The district attorney's office has issued subpoenas for the records, so that's where it stands today." Reporter:  And you would characterize that as criminal? "Again, you'd have to direct that to the District Attorney," said McCarthy.

Speaking briefly Monday, Schenectady mayor Gary McCarthy did not explain why a City Law Department e-mail called the Jay Street fire investigation criminal, he would only confirm the county's top prosecutor is involved.

"Again, the District Attorney's office has issued some subpoenas. So I referred you back to the DA on that," said McCarthy.

The District Attorney was not available for questions Monday.

But police spokesman Mark McCracken characterized the "criminal investigation," as mere standard procedure.

"It's not assumed criminal, but you have to act like it could be. You have to conduct the investigation, with the potential for it being a criminal investigation," said. Lt. Mark McCracken.

Still, our request for the building and code department's records on the destroyed buildings, remains denied. The DA will have sole possession of those files.

McCracken said, "That would just be to preserve that potential evidence." Photographer: "But that's common in investigations? "Absolutely. Especially something of this magnitude: loss of life, extreme property damage," McCracken said.

"Why won't they release the records? We want to know," said resident Dennis Thomas.

Former dwellers in the Jay Street buildings, like Dennis Thomas, who said he lived with his dog on the fifth floor, believe those records may explain a lot.

"Why didn't the alarms go off? Okay? I mean, there's a lot of questions that have got to be answered. Whose fault? Who's at fault?" said Thomas.

Right now, no criminal charges are pending. But the makings of answers may come soon, with the federal side of the probe set to wrap-up in two to three days.

Firefighters will not be entering the larger building, 100-102 Jay Street. But they have not ruled out the possibility of more human remains in either building.

Demolition will be careful and methodical, in case there are any more bodies among the rubble.

If news media asked to see the inspection records just hours after the inspection was done, and before the fire, would the request be granted?

You would think so because there would have been no fire

So what is different now?  

Perhaps because the city knew the inspection indicated the alarm/sprinklers were not working and because they failed to declare the building unsafe and didn't order the tenants out, now that a fire did occur AND people died, the CRIME is the city allowed people to stay in a building that was too dangerous?

Ultimately whether it is deliberate arson or something accidental such as something left on the stove, the apparent fact, based on what the city told the news already about the non-working alarms/sprinkler, the city is most definitely responsible if they allowed tenants to continue staying there.

Quoted from mikechristine1

If news media asked to see the inspection records just hours after the inspection was done, and before the fire, would the request be granted?

You would think so because there would have been no fire

So what is different now?  IT'S A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, THAT'S WHAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!! DUH!!!!!

Perhaps because the city knew the inspection indicated the alarm/sprinklers were not working and because they failed to declare the building unsafe and didn't order the tenants out, now that a fire did occur AND people died, the CRIME is the city allowed people to stay in a building that was too dangerous?

Ultimately whether it is deliberate arson or something accidental such as something left on the stove, the apparent fact, based on what the city told the news already about the non-working alarms/sprinkler, the city is most definitely responsible if they allowed tenants to continue staying there.

Again, did the city actually say they know the alarms were not working? I have only read that the system expired in February. That does not necessarily indicate that it was not working. There have been many stories though, so I may have missed the definitive answer on the status of the alarms functionality. The tenants had complained that there were a lot of false alarms so it had to have been working still at some point very recently. Maybe because of the false alarms it had been turned off?

It's getting worse

PASS THE WORD

Quoted Text

Mayor of Schenectady has declared a state of emergency


Updated: Monday, March 16 2015, 09:04 PM EDT
SCHENECTADY - The Mayor of Schenectady has declared a state of emergency due to what police describe as a situation that threatens the public safety at the site where flames ripped through two buildings on Jay Street back in early March.

Mayor Gary McCarthy declared the State of Emergency beginning at 7:30 p.m. on March 16 through 12:00 p.m. March 21.  

This State of Emergency has been declared within the area of Jay Street between Franklin Street and Liberty Street, extending down Franklin Street to 427 Franklin Street, and extending down Liberty Street to the intersection of Yates Street.  This includes the parking lots behind all buildings on Jay Street between Franklin Street and Liberty Street.

Like maybe the city better cut it's losses now?

Quoted from joebxr

What is the crime?  

Hey I don't doubt that the city is the criminal for FAILING to get the people out of the building knowing that the alarm and sprinklers weren't working.

Is that the crime?

Quoted from rpforpres

They are saying criminal activity has not been determined, and documents are being preserved for their “potential evidentiary value.”

Documents, meaning the code inspection.   How much is the city insured for?

Quoted from mikechristine1

What is the crime?  

Hey I don't doubt that the city is the criminal for FAILING to get the people out of the building knowing that the alarm and sprinklers weren't working.

Is that the crime?

Is smoking in bed a crime ?

A State of Emergency??!!!!!!  For what?

Quoted from Sombody

Is smoking in bed a crime ?

Doubtful it is.  If so, I'd like to see someone post a link to the local, state, or federal law that says that.

Careless, yes,  Is the smoker liable civilly, maybe.  Would anyone collect from the smoker?  Highly unlikely

But fire codes and the requirement for working alarms/sprinkler systems are the rule regardless of how a fire might be started in the future,

Quoted from rpforpres

A State of Emergency??!!!!!!  For what?

Just read that the buildings are very unstable and "in danger of imminent collapse."  

Quoted from mikechristine1

What is the crime?  

Hey I don't doubt that the city is the criminal for FAILING to get the people out of the building knowing that the alarm and sprinklers weren't working.

Is that the crime?

Criminal investigation does not mean they have determined there was a
crime, it means that's how they are handling it.  How hard is that to understand????
Didn't they teach you anything at Real Estate school?  Why do you persist in being
irresponsible with your posts on this topic, making claims that can't be
supported.  You act like you are some ambulance chasing failure wannabe.
Chicken Little has nothing on you!