Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wrong Man's House Demolished By City Of Pittsburgh
- Thread starter Don't panic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What a nightmare that would be. Imagine losing irreplaceable posessions - photos, family memorobilia etc etc. Or finding out that your insurance isn't going to help you out as much as you thought. I truly pity that man. That's a pretty bad mistake to make on the part of the demolition people at any rate. What the hell were they doing?
Not to belittle the man, but his quote in the OP is already a candidate for "Unecessarily Descriptive Understatement of the Year 2011".
Not to belittle the man, but his quote in the OP is already a candidate for "Unecessarily Descriptive Understatement of the Year 2011".
Last edited:
His name is DON'T PANIC.
LOL
"contractor at fault"
Likely insurance of the contractor.
based on what the video showed it will be the contractor who is going to be paying for and that contractor is going to be paying a huge chunk of changed. First the value of the house, plus cost of any work put into it, along with estimated value of items in the house lost at replacement value (aka new) along with pain and suffer and I am going to guess more money to because for housing for a few months.
Based on what I can see contractor was notified not to demo the house.
I would not be surprised if this bankrupts the contractor.
Chapter 11 to the rescue? Gotta love the U. S. of A.
There is such a thing as a Performance Bond. Someone should read-up on that.
Chapter 11 to the rescue? Gotta love the U. S. of A.
There is such a thing as a Performance Bond. Someone should read-up on that.
more like chapter 7.
Problem is I do not see the bonds paying up on this. They might pay the guy but then turn around and sue the contractor in to chapter 7.
Bonds rarely if ever cover gross negligents on the part of the contractor and this is where this falls.
True, but anything the city has to do to get things resolved ultimately costs the taxpayers money.
Ah I love right-wing thinking.
I'm certainly not aginst compensating the man, just pointing out that when the city screws up, everyone pays.
Back in my hometown, the mayor once misappropriated money for road upkeep in order to build a baseball stadium. The subsequent financial crisis resulted in a loss of a number of municipal services as spending was cut to make up the shortfall - in addition to the taxes going up. The mayor narrowly avoided jail.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
And the Steelers suck. Just needed to add that.
And the Steelers suck. Just needed to add that.
Yeah good thing he wasnt living in it so he didnt have much in it. Just some tools that he asked the contractor about and they said they didnt see any tools...but they had his lumber on there truck. Seen it at 6am today
A few notes:
1. He was in the process of remodeling it, and had not yet moved in. Thankfully, no personal-type possessions were in, just the tools he was using remodeling it.
2. The city had gotten an order to demolish it; he fought it and won. He had a court order instructing the city to NOT demolish it; and a copy of a letter the city subsequently send to the contractor telling the contractor DO NOT DEMOLISH (yes - in bold underlined caps, even.)
3. The city DID have an order to demolish the house next door. It is not yet clear if the order that the city sent to the contractor was wrong, or if the contractor goofed up and tore down the wrong house.
So, in the end, it all depends on whether the city's order to the contractor is wrong; or the contractor read it wrong.
If the city had the order written wrong, then in the end, the taxpayers will foot the bill. (Which, because it was a government entity, is proper.)
If the contractor read it wrong, then their insurance will pay for it. If they are a reasonably big contractor, they will be able to absorb the hit rather easily.
1. He was in the process of remodeling it, and had not yet moved in. Thankfully, no personal-type possessions were in, just the tools he was using remodeling it.
2. The city had gotten an order to demolish it; he fought it and won. He had a court order instructing the city to NOT demolish it; and a copy of a letter the city subsequently send to the contractor telling the contractor DO NOT DEMOLISH (yes - in bold underlined caps, even.)
3. The city DID have an order to demolish the house next door. It is not yet clear if the order that the city sent to the contractor was wrong, or if the contractor goofed up and tore down the wrong house.
So, in the end, it all depends on whether the city's order to the contractor is wrong; or the contractor read it wrong.
If the city had the order written wrong, then in the end, the taxpayers will foot the bill. (Which, because it was a government entity, is proper.)
If the contractor read it wrong, then their insurance will pay for it. If they are a reasonably big contractor, they will be able to absorb the hit rather easily.
That goes without saying.
Thanks for the info. Obviously there's a history there, and it makes the situation a bit less bizarre. But still a pretty big screw-up.
Umm the contractor tore down both houses. Not just the one they are supposed to.
Condemed
Your house is condemmed by the city, that means its an eyesore, its dangerous, it's unsafe for the neighbors. If you want to save that house you've got to move quick, not go on vacation. If Pittsburg is like Cleveland then there are thousands of houses like that. The guy bought that house for a few thousand dollars, was going to fix it up, so he says but didn't . He wasn't even living in that house, it was an "investment property". I have no pity for him
Your house is condemmed by the city, that means its an eyesore, its dangerous, it's unsafe for the neighbors. If you want to save that house you've got to move quick, not go on vacation. If Pittsburg is like Cleveland then there are thousands of houses like that. The guy bought that house for a few thousand dollars, was going to fix it up, so he says but didn't . He wasn't even living in that house, it was an "investment property". I have no pity for him
can you imagine that?
hopefully he will be quickly and generously compensated.
Stories like that are so ridiculous that they can only happen in the United States... Or isn't it strange that you almost never hear something like that from other parts of the world?
Anyone got a street address, so we can all get a look at this "property", via Google Street View??
According to an article I found, this is it.
Not the nicest house, but given its surroundings, not an eyesore. The articles I've read said he was in the process of making repairs, he had already replaced the windows and drywall and was returning to the house to do more work.
He fought the condemnation and won. He had a letter from the city stating "Do Not Demolish."
He had done work on the house. New windows, doors, etc.
How do you know what he paid? And better yet, what does it matter? He has spent that money and now has nothing to show for it.
True, he was living in an apartment. But again, even if it was an investment property does it matter? Or should he just have to suck it up cause it is an investment property?
Hopefully, you'll never lose anything or money due to someone else's negligence. But if you do, I kinda hope you get screwed like this guy is.
http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=13798513
www.ksla.com said:
That picture raised more questions, if accurate.
Which next door house was the actual target, and why??
Unless they are unsound for some reason, neither of them look to be that bad.