New Haven Independent

Posted by: Esbe | January 25, 2008 11:26 AM

No insurance? Ouch. I feel very sorry for the Hahn family, but "no insurance" is almost literally playing with fire.

A judge is obviously going to have to decide where what percentage of fault (if any) lies. I don't fault the city for moving quickly with demolition, it would be criminal to simply hope that an unstable building would keep standing -- imagine the outcry if the city delayed and then the building crumbled into Chapel Street, damaging even more adjacent structures.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | January 25, 2008 11:45 AM

The Hahn's have a reasonable case, as does Denz. The city blocked them from any participation in the remedy, and in doing so racked up an unimaginable cost of demolition. I find it hard to believe the demo cost $1.5 million let alone $2.2 million. How can any reasonable person have a swing of $700,000? This is what happens when you don't get bids and when your buddies are doing the work.

In this week when we're all paying our eye bulging property taxes - know that your bill in six months and six months after that will be even higher, in part to runaway spending, in part because of this mess.

Posted by: p | January 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Yeah, not carrying any insurance seems like it was a bad move. From some accounts I have heard the building was in pretty rough shape even if the structure had not been compromised. The upper floors had not been used in decades.

The city could take the property via eminent domain, pay them a fair amount and help Mrs. Hahn move into a new location.

Speaking of liability, is there any update on the cause of the fire that started this, or has answers to that been lost in the rubble?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 25, 2008 1:14 PM

Not insured?! Wow no wonder they are suing. The city is not at fault the building was not well maintained and was in bad shape prior to the fire. The lack of proper maintenance, I am sure is what put this building at risk. At least that is the way I see it I could be wrong. And the city had no choose but to knock it down. It was another possible tragedy waiting to happen. I with ESBE on the fact that what would of happen if and or when this building came down on its own while we waiting for the family to figure out what they could do.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 25, 2008 1:39 PM

$1.5-$2.2Million in demolition costs?? Good Grief!

1) Is that the total for the whole block, or just for Ms. Hahn's building?

2) Let me guess, a no-bid contract?

3) How can there not be an exact figure? What is still undertermined?

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | January 25, 2008 2:35 PM

"sometimes you have to take away people's livelihoods." Hey Rizzo: quotes like that do not help you or the City's cause. In the future, you should definitely not talk to the press. You'll be given plenty of time to explain your unique and very dubious positions testifying under oath in forththcoming lawsuits.

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | January 25, 2008 3:02 PM

We knew this law suit was coming, after all wouldn't you suit with the comfort of knowing that the city has lost 10 suits of major consequence in a row. The last being a 500K award to a city park dept.employee who was denied a job at the public works dept. due to age discrimination.

It matters not whether the Hans had insurance, in this case the hans would have to prove to the insurance company that this was an insurable condition. According to Rizzo the building was in deplorable condition for quite some time, however, Rizzo failed to inspect the building and take appropriate action prior to the fire.

It seems to me that the burden of prof lies with Rizzo, and not the Hans.

Posted by: Da Hill | January 25, 2008 6:26 PM

Just Curious,

What is going to be the outcome when someone FOIA's the docs that led to the determination that the building was not salvagable. Rizzo mentioned in an earlier quote that the building engineers determined that the building was at risk for collapse...where is the report. Where is the fire dept report...oddly, the city has effectively recieved what has been wanting from day one...control of that block...Way to go Johnny Boy and Co.

I sure hope they never want anything on my block...cause we would be screwed...

Posted by: Been in most Chapel St buildings | January 25, 2008 8:13 PM

I have been in most of the buildings on Chapel St as an appraiser and city worker. Most buildings hare party walls. Mr. Rizzo and the inspectors were most probably correct in the conclusion that the removal of an adjacent builings would make Hahn's building unsafe. I also know that if no insurance was in place on the building there was absolutely no reason to allow it to stand as a liability.

However, Denz's building, and the removal of that building which was insured, may open the city to liability since a reconstruction contractor could possibly have been able to underpin the old footings at the party wall, thereby salvaging both the adjacent property and the building itself. I am a project manager for a firm that specializes in fire and insurance work, and I believe I, and others, could have done a far better job while keeping some historic New Haven buildings.

Posted by: claws and balls demolition company | January 26, 2008 6:20 AM

Having seen Andy Rizzo interact with members of the Hahn family, I saw firsthand his compassion and interest in their wellbeing and their livelihood. If laws and ordinances require the City to place a lien, and to stand tough and deny responsibility -- then that's a real shame. This should never be a lawsuit, never get to court. As a taxpayer, I support the City and those responsible for the original fire making the Hahn's whole. Let's make any payment to those who are wronged, not to Attorneys. Sit down, play nice, fess up, pay up, no lawsuit.

Posted by: eli | January 27, 2008 10:59 PM

Maybe they can errect a dunkin donuts with a liquor store kiosk in the back where the building stood. ooh - and a subway in the way back. and a wig store upstairs.