At this point I dont know what to make of this
Worcester Mag story
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
4 comments:
Here's my input & questions...right or wrong.
a. These new owners should have at least shown the city some progress during their 1 year ownership.
b. Is the place "sprinklered"?
c. Inspectors are fixed costs on the city payroll w/o re to how many incidents they have to deal with. To say its a drain on city resources needs to be qualified by the above.
d. How "off the charts' was PIP shelter during its reign as Worc's mattress of last resort?
e. Many of these code violations a can be found in any older builing and in many newer ones, too. I wont bore you again with my unofficial list of derelict city owned buildings.
f. "Prositituion and drugs in & around the building" Again a Deja Vu of the fomer PIP and the PIP was never shut b/c it was a non profit. This is contuined discrimination by city officials when enforcing laws.
g. Arent fulltime resident managers req'd for these places?
h. Barbs Haller insulted by the owners feigned ingnorance????....surely this woman jests.....given her feigned lack of knowledge of the residents complaints about the closing Downing St. Then there's another main south Real estate tycoon that seems to be above many of the rules.......GEEEEESSSSSHHHHH.......more feigned indifference.
i. Kinda funny how former PIP'ers are now able cough up $400+ monthly for a room and they formerly got to live at the PIP which was a free nightly mattress.
j. So much for citys failed plan for closing the PIP. Where did they expect this human debris to go....out to the Shrewsbury Motel?...out to the Oakham farm where booze and drugs cannot be readily accessed?
k. Another case of city using strongarm tactics to close up a business a la Paris Cinema style.
L. I wonder if teh Comm. Healthlink is overcrowded and the city is also turning a blind eye to that???? If so, different strokes for diff folks in Worcester.
For me I just keep going back to the fact that they have only owned the building since June of 2010---one year.
At least when the city takes over, they don't have to worry about those pesky codes.
From what I understand, a tenant who is behind in his rent can simply call code enforcement, and when the landlord tries to evict him, he claims it's retaliation and never leaves. At least that's what Diane Williamson's 'Tenant from Hell' does.
Steve is correct re what many of these tenants do. If the state law actually req'd tenants to truly w/h the rent and place it in an escrow account, 99% of the code depts tenant complaints would disappear overnight. Talk about wasting city resources with complaints of a chipped wall that the tenant probaly caused to begin with. The reality is that the tenant doesnt have the rent money, so how can they w/h what they dont have to begin with......but that's Mass tenant/Landlord law for ya.
And speaking of wasting city resources, todays (6-27) T&G reports the City will spend $26.7M on building energy upgrades which $26.7M will save $1.4M over 20 years or $70,000 per year.
So for you BC folks, that"s a return to teh city of .0027 per year.
Why not just put the $26.7M into:
1. a 5 yr CD at 3.0% or
2. into gov't bonds at about 5.0% or
3. into the stock market for about 7-8% on average over the long run or
4. into Berkshire Hathaway for 22.9% which is BH's annual return over the last 58 years.
Complete and utter mismanagemtn and please no one tell me that it doenst matter b/c the money is coming from Washington
TGIF
Post a Comment