Whaddya think? Have I sufficiently warped my son's brain yet? Or should I let him watch Simon Cowell destroying people's potential singing careers on FOX?
*from Shel Silverstein's Runny Babbit
________________________
Oh, and as for one of the reasons why I'm reserving judgment on this street opening, well, the city gave this their all. I wish they would give the rest of the homes in New Orleans the same kind of careful attention:
On Wednesday (March 7 ,07), “Division F Judge Yada Magee issued a ruling in favor of the City of New Orleans, authorizing the partial demolition - specifically, the right exterior wall -- of the property owned by Jocelyn Sinclair Griffith and located at 1336-40 Magazine Street and 1025 Melpomene Street Magazine."
The city acted with such surgical precision on that exterior wall. What was preventing them from doing the same with the underground work a few years back? Where's my time machine? I'll send those careful people back, and then the street will have been whole all this time...
"On January 19, 2007, Griffith filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting that the City of New Orleans be enjoined from demolishing property located at 1336-1340 Magazine Street and 1035 Melpomene Street.”
I think we need to ask Ms Griffith to contribute her stalling skills in service to all the folks whose properties are over at Squandered Heritage. I think those whose homes are slated for demolition could use the help, and Ms Griffith would earn their everlasting gratitude.
For another reason why Lower Magazine ain't out of the woods yet, ask Blake. He needs advice, and, apparently, all of these people need some serious help.
Update, 8-21: from a commenter: Actually, Judge Magee ruled that the city could NOT demolish the buildings because testimony stated they only required shoring. (the city sent a high school grad, the Griffiths had the Director of the HDLC and an noted architect expose the sham Notice to Condemn)
The City, SWB damaged the propertys. The City issues a Stop Work Order to stop the SWB from working. Then the City denies funds to shore the damage. The City under Head's orders issues 24 hr notice to demolish (to open the street with no regard for property owners rights, A complete lack of due process.
The Judge realizes Head is trying to pull a fast one, the Notice was unconstitutional, the Notice was issued without inspection and orders the City to pay for Shoring (the partial demo order was cleverly worded to read: tear down what you broke and then fix it, the wall).
Head wanted to tear it down, lien the present owners and sell the property to a friend at a fire sale.
But good PR, huh? She looks like a hero. Hope she never wants your house
Thank you!
3 comments:
Actually, Judge Magee ruled that the city could NOT demolish the buildings because testimony stated they only required shoring. (the city sent a high school grad, the Griffiths had the Director of the HDLC and an noted architect expose the sham Notice to Condemn)
You misunderstood the purpose of thhe suit and the ruling.
The property owners have requested that the City shore the houses for two years and have been denied.
The Judge saw that the City destabilized the houses and therefore DENIED the City's bogus order to condemn and demolish the properties.
The City, SWB damaged the propertys.
The City issues a Stop Work Order to stop the SWB from working. Then the City denies funds to shore the damage. The City under Head's orders issues 24 hr notice to demolish (to open the street with no regard for property owners rights, A complete lack of due process.
The Judge realizes Head is trying to pull a fast one, the Notice was unconstitutional, the Notice was issued without inspection and orders the City to pay for Shoring (the partial demo order was cleverly worded to read: tear down what you broke and then fix it, the wall).
Head wanted to tear it down, lien the present owners and sell the property to a friend at a fire sale.
But good PR, huh? She looks like a hero. Hope she never wants your house
What on earth is that first ad for? The number at the bottom can't really be for a storage company? If they think it is funny, it isn't.
As a mother who encourages the killer bunny smack talk playing card games with my child, I am not one to throw stones.
It is for Manhattan Mini Storage in NYC. They are known for some crazy ads, but this latest is pretty insane.
And, as a person who laughs at tasteless camel jokes and raunchy psychiatrist jokes, well, I'm livin' in a glass house, myself...
Post a Comment