Jahn, who should pay for the damage to these sidewalks you or the developer?
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
11 comments:
Either the contractor who is foolish enough to walk a small to mid sized excavator over the sidewalk w/o planking it......assuming here it isnt already completely ruined ..........or the developer should pay for it. I wonder if they chewed up the street as well...afterall those machines ride on steel cleats....some have rubber cleats but machines that size are always steel from what I have seen.
Now I wonder, I would think the city requires the dev'er to sign an agreement stating dev'er will be repsosible for ANY damage to side walk during the constr period.
Jahn Q Public should not pay for it.............WTH hell should he????...........
SO the DPW sub committee has already basically approved 1/2 of Worc Common Grounds request by agreeing to replace the MAy st sidewalks..........at least that's what Nick K says..............shouldn't this request, if granted, just go on the waiting list with all the other Taxpaying citizens who have similar requests...........BTW Worc Common Ground pays no income taxes and the money they receive comes from Fed'l & state monies that come from amongst other things........out income taxes.
I sure hope the DPW gets an earful as a result if Nicks column
What other councillors besides Palmieri sit on teh DPW subcommittee?
Jahn:
The people (DPW) behind shrewsbury street do a great job. I am not just saying that, they do. They can be tough, but they are fair.
They hold developers accountable for the damages that are done on sidewalks and roads when trenches are dug. In fact they protect the infrastructure for the citizens of Worcester by requiring the owner of the property to either post a bonds or "cold hard cash" to cover any repairs that may need to be done.
In this example, Common Ground is honoring the rules as laid down by DPW, except that instead of them paying for the repairs on the city infrastructure, it will be us the tax-payers (you and I) footing the bill. Why should this request this be granted? It should not be granted.
Assume for a second that it is. You are correct it will go on the "list". Assuming that it is granted, I would say then at the very list it should go to the bottom of the list and get in line with all the others who have been waiting.
Since DPW wants repairs done within one year or the developer loses their posted bond or cash. How can they wait four years like everyone else?
They can not so their next request after it being granted will be to move to the front of the line. Do you see what I am saying?
Bill
I'd be willing to bet you a Pickle Barrel lunch (hot dog & glass of water) that the non profits get away with or are exempted from posting the bond or cash.
Jahn:
Although my initial reaction would be that it would surprise me, but the more I think about it I may just take the bet so I can buy you lunch.
Bill
Just read the Foxwoods laying off 700. I guess all thsoe buses from NYC with chinese lettering on the side, that I see on I-95, will now be making fewer trips.
This cant bode well for proposed Mass casinos either...which BTW, I dont really agree with.
Jahn,
I found something that I agree with you on. I'm also not in favor of casinos in Massachusetts.
Even putting the current fiscal mess aside, they are not a revenue cure all that proponents will lead you to believe.
Case in point, Connecticut’s 2 very profitable casinos (even with the just announced layoffs) has not been cash cows for the state. In fact, if memory serves me correct, Connecticut was close to bankruptcy just a few short years ago with large deficits. And this was when the economy and tax collections were pretty strong. State legislators wanted to approach the casinos to try to wrestle more money from them to avoid state layoffs.
I was working downtown once and had my outriggers to my crane set up on the sidewalk. I was stoped by someone from the city (DPW) and was told I needed a sidewalk permit ($80.00) so they could go and inspect the sidewalks before I started. If I had caused any damage I would have to pay for the repair of the sidewalks. Why shouldn't WCG.
David, surely you jest? You dont agree with me on my positions re:
a. too much low income housing in Worc.
b. The fire dept in general.
c. Police alleged pay scandal
d. police details.
e. CDC's in general
f. the city's overall finacial condition.
g. sick day abuse by city 'ees
h. the airport $2M black hole
i. Bill randells obvioulsy incoorect position re: the location of the airport non existent access road.
Would someone do Councillor Germaine a favor and tell him to think before he opens his mouth. Imagine if some drunken bad guys crashed Paulie Polooza last weekend....or worse yet some drunk drove their car accidenatlly into Paulies tent and an altercation resulted....under Germaines proposal, Paulie would be fined for the actions of the party crashers only b/c the incident occurred on his property....
and who knows maybe the party crashers could subsequently claim an alcoholic disabilty and qualify for SSI??.....or better yet maybe an AIG monthly disablity check
Sign Man:
I did not know about the $80 permit, but I would agree (and I think you would too) that if your crane caused the damage then you should fix it.
Would you call the City Councilor and ask to have the City pay for it?
I Will now.... maybe they will realize how silly they are on some of the things they let slide.
I have a suspicion the fee is more in the nature of "if you block the sidewalk we need to know about it" type of thing?????
Just be grateful you didnt need a police detail at $40/hr.......4hr minumim......either that or flipping the local police patrolman a C note for not requiring you to have a detail & a permit.
Post a Comment