After an exhilarating bike ride this morning, we finally read the paper.

Previously a tenant of 104 Jay was said to be suing the owner of 104 Jay.  According to what I think we remember reading, 104 Jay had alarms which were expired, did not have a sprinkler system because allegedly they didn't have to because of the age of the building.  The alarm certification was expired is about all the city would say about the code inspection.

Now, the owner of 100-102 Jay is suing the city for losses apparently due to the questionable inspection (for which the owners of 100-102 Jay have not been given)  The owner of 100-102 apparently had alarms and sprinklers but the tenants have said they weren't working.,  The building was not insured.  The owner was also delinquent on taxes.  

Will the city sue this owner to seize it's assets to recoup the demolition costs on behalf of the taxpayers?   ROFL

Another tenant of 104 is suing owner of 104.


100-102 was sold in 2012, and the owner has it's mortgage not through a bank, but they pay their mortgage (if they pay) to the previous man who owned the place.

Did the city ever inspect 100-102?  Did all apartments have valid rental certs?  Did the city re-inspect when 100-102 changed title in 2012?  What did those records say?

If tenants claimed things weren't working in either of the two buildings, did they ever complain to the city


Something tells me this will go on a long time.  The taxpayers of the city will probably be dead before they know what's in that inspection report.  

IF McCarthy wants to win this fall, I would think he would make that inspection report public!

He's claiming it's the work product (or whatever they call it) of a criminal investigation so it isn't subject to FOIL. For that to be the case, the inspection would have had to have been performed as part of a criminal investigation. McCarthy was an investigator for the DA's office, wasn't he? Then he HASTO know that doesn't hold water.
There seems to be a problem with disclosing who actually owns the building. There is something very wrong going on here. Why should it matter to anyone, if it is known who owns the building?

I went and looked up the article, and I'm seeing some names now.
I've noticed lately, a lot of discussion of sprinkler systems. It is my impression that sprinkler systems protect property, not lives. I could be wrong.