Yeah, I doubt that is going to go anywhere.I'm trying to picture how that would work. The only phase that I could see having an impact would be excavation.
I think they just can't deal with the fact they voted NO to repairing their own building and want to blame other people. But I haven't read the lawsuit.The suit alleges that they didn't follow industry standards and ignored clear warning signs that the neighboring building was unstable. They of course would need to prove this claim, but if true I don't think this is a laughable suit at all.
I think they just can't deal with the fact they voted NO to repairing their own building and want to blame other people. But I haven't read the lawsuit.
I'm not sure what all was involved in the new construction, but if they had to drive any piles, there would likely be impact forces felt close by.
I think they just can't deal with the fact they voted NO to repairing their own building and want to blame other people. But I haven't read the lawsuit.
I think they just can't deal with the fact they voted NO to repairing their own building and want to blame other people. But I haven't read the lawsuit.
That may have been reasonable if the collapse has occurred during or shortly after the construction of the new building.Given the scale of the disaster, and that people actually died, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest those doing building work nearby had some responsibility to be sure it wasn't having a bad effect on the existing building - even if that was partly because of pre-existing faults with that existing building.
You can't prevent people from building on their property because you have refused to maintain your property.Given the scale of the disaster, and that people actually died, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest those doing building work nearby had some responsibility to be sure it wasn't having a bad effect on the existing building - even if that was partly because of pre-existing faults with that existing building.
Thinking about it, it seems like it is morally-complicated in a similar way to the Baldwin-Hutchins shooting. The question being how far, when doing something potentially dangerous, is it reasonable to assume everyone else around you has done their job perfectly?
(Anyone who thinks Alec Baldwin as an actor was responsible, even partly, in that case, should surely also hold the builders of the new building responsible in this case?)
Also I can't entirely blame the owners of appartments for not being keen to pay for massive repairs on their building, because of the way these things work, where current owners find themselves lumped with huge bills because of past-owners failure to do what was necessary, or put any money aside for such repairs.
You can't prevent people from building on their property because you have refused to maintain your property.
But I need to read the actual claims, maybe the did do something specific that cause geotechnical damage to the neighboring property.
I think this is a very good point. You knew someone was going to get sued due to this and since the building owners can’t well sue themselves there’s a strong probability they went searching for who they could sue. I’m skeptical this has merit.If the HOA had evidence that the construction of the adjacent building caused the damage they contend I'd think they would have likely sued them to help pay for the 15M in repairs that they were facing. The developers are the only target with deep pockets at this point.
The numerous significant problems of the collapsed building are certainly going to be star attractions in any such lawsuit so I'm skeptical about the outcome here even if it was, somehow, a contributing factor.
You can't prevent people from building on their property because you have refused to maintain your property.
Looking for deep pockets.Yeah, I doubt that is going to go anywhere.
"Our building was built like shit, with a shallow foundation, therefore you can't build on your lot because it might cause ground vibrations."
Rofl, threaten people's lives and throw them out on the street, and do literally the minimum required effort to get them out the door.Residents will receive a refund of April's rent and return of their security deposits and the city will allow renters to re-enter the building later this week to pick up their belongings and to move out furniture.
Redux in the works ....
April 5 (UPI) -- Months after a Miami Beach condominium collapsed killing nearly 100 people, officials have ordered a nearby building to evacuate.
The City of North Beach said Monday that the order was issued for the five-story Bayview 60 Homes apartment complex after it received a brief letter Friday from structural engineer Bronislaus P. Taurinski who wrote the building was "structurally unsound and must be evacuated immediately."
The building, which was built in 1972, was undergoing repairs in advance of its upcoming 50-year recertification inspections when Taurinski informed the building's owner and the city for it to be immediately evacuated due to "critical structural issues" caused by "a deflection in the elevation of the building's floor slabs."
Residents will receive a refund of April's rent and return of their security deposits and the city will allow renters to re-enter the building later this week to pick up their belongings and to move out furniture.
Officials issue evacuation order for building near Surfside condo collapse over 'critical structural issues' - UPI.com
Months after a Miami Beach condominium collapsed killing nearly 100 people, officials have ordered a nearby building to evacuate.www.upi.com
The wonders of tall buildings.
Rofl, threaten people's lives and throw them out on the street, and do literally the minimum required effort to get them out the door.
I hope there's a class action.