New Haven Independent

Posted by: Denz Please | July 16, 2008 6:59 PM

So let's get Denz's argument straight . . .

It's the city's fault because HIS tenant may have broken the law in running a business in HIS building.

Are you kidding? Denz's lawyer better get his payment up front. This will be laughed out of court.

You can't hold the city accountable for your failure to meet your obligations under the building code. The city is not Denz's architect. It is his obligation to be sure his buildings are safe. He has no right to rely on the city's evaluation of his properties for safety purposes. He has to hire an architect to do that.

Passersby may have an argument, though Grant's statement makes it pretty clear that even they don't. Grant says the building had no problems under the fire code and the fire would have been just as damaging anyway (which makes sense since the sprinklers that were there would have kept people in the bar from getting burned but clearly did not put out the fire on the floor above).

Why passersby may have an argument if they were hurt: If you walk by a building where an illegally operated and maintained crane falls on your head, killing you; your family can almost certainly successfully sue the crane operator and the building owner. If you can show that the city's crane inspector got paid off to not do an inspection, then your family can probably successfully sue the city. But that's because the city's behavior was partially responsible for your innocent injury and as an innocent passerby you had the right to assume that the city keeps you safe and does not take bribes which put you at risk. The crane operator and building owner can't successfully sue the city since they were the one's who BROKE THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

Denz's argument is basically -- "I broke the law and if you had not let me do so, my building would not have burned down." That's idiotic.

I'm going to go rob a liquor store and then sue the cops for letting me do so when the cashier shoots me with his hidden shotgun.

This guy ran a bunch of crappy buildings that were an unbelievable eyesore and apparently unsafe. That's not the taxpayers fault.

Posted by: Name Withheld | July 16, 2008 8:03 PM

The Employee who ran the job for Manafort absolutely denies being on the job previous to the demolition of the Concord 9. Half of the Kresge building was 30' tall and three stories and it was demolished previous to the concord 9.

I'm guessing that a company as big as Manafort would not take a bullet for Andy Rizzo.
If anyone in the public is interested how their tax dollars are being lost to law suits, give Manafort a call and ask them if they had anything to do with the demolition of the 3 Story Kresge building

Posted by: JP | July 16, 2008 8:10 PM

If Denz cared at all about the community he would have done something anything with the Variety store by now. He hasn't even put real doors on the parking garage just wood and chicken wire. Seems to me that none of the accusations make any sense at all. Shouldn't he be suing the owners of the Brass monkey if anyone?

Posted by: Esbe | July 16, 2008 9:34 PM

If the demolition contractor didn't have the proper certification for the Kresge demolition, how did this adversely affect Denz? I get the argument that might be made by the Hahns, whose building was damaged by the demolition, not the fire (and it is interesting that the city has already settled with them.) But if the buildings had to come down awayway, how was Denz harmed by the (alledged) improper cert? It does seems like an enforcement issue for the state, who might want to punish the original contractor (if the charge is true.)

Didn't Denz promise a development plan for the site? Have we seen that?

Posted by: Dont You Believe It | July 17, 2008 8:05 AM

Name Witheld. Manafort would say anything to help the city. They have a multi million dollar contract to run the transfer station and haul trash.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 17, 2008 8:54 AM

Sorry I have to....
http://ia360611.us.archive.org/2/items/BillyJoel/WeDidntStartFire.mp3

Posted by: anon | July 17, 2008 9:41 AM

So, Manafort was brought on when the city discovered they were using the wrong demolition company - and they discovered that because of routine review of paperwork or becuase the demolition was botched by the company that had no business doing it? Bet that question is going to come up.

also, we still don't know how this fire started and what kind of negligence, if any, was responsible for it.

Also, is the city saying that if the sprinkler system was flush wtih the ceiling, as it should have been, it would have been activated and could have dampened this fire?

I wonder why spaces with occupancies of less than 300 are not required to have sprinklers, especially when attached to larger spaces in the same building.

I can see why small standalones wouldn't need them, but what about a store front under offices. Does that mean large buildings don't have to have them?

Lots of multi-story residential apartment buildings don't have to have them it seems like - just smoke detectors right?

Interesting problem anyway.

Regardless of the merits of the case in the end, I think a lot of people had the perception that the city was being pretty nasty towards the building owners from the start of this thing though, and that does mean something, it's important, if not illegal.