I agree - I remember going to many venues that were probably death traps when I lived in Michigan, so it's not like this is specific to one or two cities. I do believe that Oakland is going to be hit with a huge lawsuit and I'm a bit torn over it. On the one hand city records are messed up and if it's true that no one has inspected the GS for 30 years then I blame the city for not keeping up.
OTOH, the owner IMO is on the first line of fault simply because that's how the law works. It's up to the owner to make sure there are fire suppression methods in place. No excuses.
The owner could have been unaware of what her tenant was using the space for but that doesn't excuse the lack of alarms, sprinklers, cleared fire exits, etc. That's squarely on the owner's shoulders.
Derick I is also to blame for obvious reasons. According to witnesses he was aware of the dangers and didn't act to resolve them.
In the meantime, the
New York Times reports that other cities are cracking down on similar artist warehouses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/oakland-fire-illegal-warehouses.html
Here's what happened in Baltimore:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-bell-foundry-20161205-story.html
Something I noticed in these and other articles is that many city officials are talking about making spaces safer but not necessarily to the point of outpricing tenants. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems that in at least some cases the discussion is more about making changes to insure residents' safety instead of just shutting the space down.
A web site has been created in the hopes of helping artists find ways to improve their space:
http://saferspac.es/
I do think everyone's goal is to make warehouse live/work communities viable for artists. The cities shutting down spaces are reacting to the possibility of being sued IMO, so if enough groups can get involved to help the artists out without making their living space cost prohibitive then maybe they can focus more on the positive rather than CYA. It would be a win/win situation IMO.
Sorry for rambling :blushing: I'm trying to squeeze in a lot of info and opinion in one post. The upshot of my point is that I believe there will be a temporary panic where cities will condemn buildings in order to be liability free but that once things calm down people will get on the ball and start coming up with fixes for the problems that don't involve leaving artists without a place to live.
Oh, and a P.S.: What a stupid time of year - Winter- to start throwing people out on the street...
I am not totally sure, but me sense is that none of that has to be done by an owner as long as it is only being used as storage.
There are a ton of buildings built whatever dates that preceded code changes that are exempt
even if humans are gonna occupy.f
Also now that we know that the building had never been really looked at or monitored, in conjunction with the fact that the owner did respond to the first violation and mitigated it- I think that goes a long way.
As far as Friday night went (T-Giving weekend the notice went out) the owner , had, in know way indicated intent not to mitigate - they only knew about the violation a few days before the tragedy.
Any and all of this is interesting but irrelevant in real America.
Whoever has the deepest pockets , in terms of civil, is who everyone is going after.
In terms of Ion, IMO he is in another whole league of liability . Anyone knows that propane heated showers are probably not in the best interest of fire prevention!!
No one gave me a keychain with a little flashlight when I moved in! Clearly, indicates an awareness that lighting might be optional at times!!
None of us have a fire extinguisher every 8 x 10 area of our home ! (that may change ha1). Obviously, indicates that most were aware they was a valid fire concern within the community.
Being told to always say it is only a workspace indicates he clearly knew he was violating the law (that in and of itself seems like it would be enough) moo
I suppose he may have (doubtful in such an international story) retained attorneys, but I would think the media would have found out, or the media would be referred to that person by now.
This notion, IMO, is the most stunning out of the whole tragedy, in terms of psychopathology. If he truly has not retained an attorney, he must (core belief) authentically (Today show) believe he bears no responsibility.
IMO this is intense cognitive dissonance, how on earth could a person who is telling tenants to "lie" but still not KNOW that he needs an attorney is a really pathological thinking process IMO.
I still think both of them are super high flight risk. If his core belief system is he has no responsibility for any of this, then the logical next thinking notion would be I am being erroneously held accountable, then I will just split.
After discovering (I posted both of them in case we need them later ha! I think his criminal history is far more extensive. He has a multitude of names - the two posted that were just like "close" to one another . I don't remember exactly but it was BS like Bob Jones at times and Bobby Jonnes. Close but different in computer days,
Then he has Ion bla bla Ion some middle name bla bal and one other.
Then on Spokeo like site he has like 5 different countries in terms of residence.
Who knows how many more names he has.
The notion that the reality that his children have been removed still has not seemed to register that the system does not agree with his notions that the place is safe, takes us back to an amazing belief system - kinda scary actually.
In addition, if it is true that CPS was out there a couple of days prior, how he cant connect that down the road, there are going to be case workers able to clearly (that stuff has to be really documented in detail) state the conditons they encountered.
Again, it comes back to how can he truly beleive , that anyone could possibly beleive that he thousht it was safe, if 72 hours before, concerns about his childrens welfare were clearly outlined to him is also bizarre.
By law, CPS must give care takers very clear thing and specific "things" that must be addressed to avoid removal from their custody, or in this case having then removed again.
WIth prior CPS invovment there will also be very clearly documented accounts by the children outlining how they were living. I also think as it relates to confidentiality a judge might allow some of those statements to be entered-36 people are deceased, its been all over the global media , so I think a judge might conclude that revealing some of that information (its already out there) is fine.
Then he has those two ladies who have been all over media, and then the g parents who know a lot it goes back to where is your attorney?
We might be talking about a murder trial, lots of people flip when we are talking about life in prison, so who knows what else is gonna be found out as "those in the know" reveal to save their tushies.
mo only
