Custom Search

Friday, July 09, 2010

St. Paul won't charge owner in roof collapse

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Anonymous Tribune said...

Last update: July 8, 2010 - 10:09 PM

St. Paul officials will not cite or charge the owner of an apartment building that suffered a partial roof collapse Tuesday morning, a spokeswoman said Thursday.

There isn't a city ordinance for which owner Wally Wickard could be cited, said Angie Wiese, spokeswoman for the city's department of safety and inspections. The city's inspection of what caused the collapse at 954 Galtier St. about 9:45 a.m. was limited because inspectors could not go inside the structure, she said.

The city inspector's report showed that the collapse could have been caused by a number of things: the weight of the roof itself, the weight of anything on the roof (12 roofers and piles of new shingles were on it at the time), deterioration of the wooden rafters and joists or deterioration of the connection between them.

The back half of the building, where the roof dropped about four feet and a wall buckled out, was demolished Tuesday. The front half is still standing and will be evaluated for structural soundness. Tenants are being allowed to retrieve personal items from that portion.

Wickard said he's owned the building for 25 years, and that Tuesday was the first time during his ownership that major work on the roof has been performed. A June 25 inspection of the building found 48 violations, including general deterioration of exterior surfaces.

Asbestos was found in the building, but it is being contained and will be appropriately disposed of, Wiese said.

Seventeen people were displaced from the 100-plus-year-old building. Most were home at the time of the collapse, but no one was injured.


9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sounds like 12 illegal's working on the roof !

Wouldn't be good for the city if this landlord were fined for hiring illegals then the landlord being fined by a city that supports illegals.

This article seems to suggest the city acknowledges that a probable cause for the collapse was deterioration ? Well thats the sort of thing that could have been spotted earlier and a permit not issued until any noted
deterioration was repaired.

It seems this property was inspected and it just makes one wonder WHY 12 men would be putting a roof on this building prior to ALL repairs being made !!

I think the city is complicit in this de-boggle.

Surely the city ADMITS that there was deterioration of the roof .

Looks like the city missed something here like a proper roof inspection and had anyone been injured, well a lawsuit against the city would not be out of the question as a potential defendan't for an improper inspection or lack of one so the city chose not to cite or fine to STAND DOWN from being held partially responcible.

Jeff Matiatos

9:41 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff said;
Wouldn't be good for the city if this landlord were fined for hiring illegals then the landlord being fined by a city that supports illegals.

My response;
Jeff, I seen the news report. White contractor. I'm not sure the nationality of his employees. However, I am sure there is insurance adjusters asking these questions now. The city inspected this building and there was no report of a dangerous roof about to collapse.

How could the city even consider fining this landlord when the city inspected this building and found no problems with the roof? More of that venom toward landlords from our elected.

This will all end up in civil court and the city inspectors will be questioned as to the condition of the roof.

10:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home