More inspectors considered -QCTimes
So now we're hiring more folks to replace the ones we shouldn't have gotten rid of. I really wonder how many people out there still think that dissolving the NEO was a good idea. Can't you tell that all of this is a money-saving move? We've caused city staff countless hours of figuring out how to implement this in the first place, and more hours trying to tweak it to actually work, and now we're just hiring a similar number of people back that were originally gotten rid of! Which department (shell) is the debris complaint department (ball) under this week? You have to watch closely!
I really hate getting into this topic. I considered making this post no-comments-allowed, but that goes against everything I want this blog to be. If there is one subject that will ever cause me to quit blogging, it will probably be the whole QCRPA/NEO/accuse everyone of being Dan, Walter, etc. So lets try and keep this on track, and also keep the NEO comments in this thread for the time being.
For the sake of argument, I'll say that that the old NEO had problems. I personally haven't dealt with them before or after the changes. If they were as screwed up prior to last year as Alderman Lynn wants us to believe, why didn't they try to fix the problem? If most businesses have some employees that aren't working out, they don't just shut down. They'd look into who's causing the problems, and find a solution, which could include some folks getting fired. That way you end up with some of the experienced folks still around, and also the department is still intact. It seems like a good idea to me to have all the inspection-based stuff together for good communication and efficiency. However, I'm no economist.
I guess it takes a professor to figure out how disbanding one department, hiring all new and untrained people to replace it, and spreading their jobs all over the city is good economics, or makes any damn sense at all.
49 comments:
I think this is one problem that may have been exacerbated by the two year term aldermen. By the time they got up to speed and without a lot of background they made a decision on somewhat shallow information. I'm all for adding personnel to clean it up at this point.
I hope they move to 4 year staggered terms so there is more of an experience base for our city leadership team. We'll have to be more careful before we vote though! :)
Qci- I believe that you had been watching the NEO travesty closely and have come up with the same conclussion as those who lived it. This was dirty politic at its worst and the "Dirty Six" have egg on their face. This is not saving us money and yes, it is confussing.
You will soon have one of those from the special interest group post a blog stating how smart Bill Lynn in and how crooked the department was. I am here to tell you that it simply is not true and the QCRPA have no proof of it. During the discussion a year ago, the NEO was under attack. As you may know, city employees are not able to defend/represent themselves. A gag order was placed by Ald. Lynn trying to stiffle Mr. Loos and those who could give testimony. Another way to rid a threat was to cause controversy, so the Loos aligations arose. Constant bagering and complaining broke the back of a department little knew of but was a big part of keeping this city somewhat respectable looking.
What we need to do now is to support the fire department with their request of additional support and remind those running this fall that our tax money is not to be spend on special interest group causes and we will not put up with it.
I agree - the old NEO was really not that bad, it was that they needed direction and guidance and accountability. Actually, I have first hand knowledge that Mike Looswas actually the one who was working to improve the NEO and then he was targeted.I live solo and I have had contact with Loos when he was employed by the city. He was the one who actually got results after years of problems and then 'boom' he was gone. Now, the city have never looked worse. I agree that we must support the new plan with all we got and we also need to ban the QCRPA from the table for good. They are the cause of this mess and we as people need to speak up and out about them.
I have lived solo for years, and I could not disagree more with the previous poster. I attend most council meetings and I was at City Hall when picture after picture of properties the old NEO was ignoring were presented to the council. There was one property that had a door to nowhere on the second floor of a building where a child could easily exit and kill themselves on. The old NEO guy actually said that was ok. It also took him a year to clean up a junkyard in somebody's backyard in a residential neighborhood.
With that kind of attitude, and with the aldermen having no control at all over hiring and firing, the old NEO really did need to get dismantled.
But, the old NEO director quit, he was not fired. And, the reason for it had nothing to do with any of this, as far as I can tell. It was allegations of corruption.
How does that make any sense 10:57? Why scrap the whole department if there were problems? The concept of the NEO makes far more sense than the decentralized format that we have now.
If you have a factory that is having quality control issues, would you disband the QA department and split the quality assurance work up between Accounting, Sales, and IT? Of course not, as that would make them less efficient and require training these other departments to do things that aren't within their realm of expertise. What you do is fix the problems with the current department, whether that means personnel changes, policy changes, or what ever is required.
Also, I reject the idea that Aldermen need control over hiring and firing of any city employee below the department head level. There's a reason that we have this form of government, and it isn't so the council can micromanage every one of our 800 city employees. We all know which Alderman wanted control over hiring and firing, and we all know who he's involved with.
If dissolving NEO was such a great idea, why not bring it up early on so the public can be involved with the debate, instead of out of nowhere at a last minute budget meeting. The only reason it can be is because it wasn't a great idea, it didn't save the city money, and it shouldn't have been done.
To me it strikes of a City Administration that really does not know what it is doing. To change from one thing to another and then have to make major changes within a year smacks of poor analysis and decision making at the front end.
Davenport should expect better than that from its government
Its not the administration's fault that this foolish plan was forced upon them. They're just struck trying to figure out a way to make it work, and its unsurprisingly difficult.
Having dismantled the NEO was a vendictive move done by six of the cities alderman. The only thought put into it was planning the correct time to strike down. It was planned to do away with inspections all together. The President of the QCRPA even laid out a plan to council where the landlords could do their own inspections and send in a letter to the housing department stating their property passed, then the inspectors could spend more time doing drive by inspections on owner occupied houses.
These pictures that 10:57 talks about were houses on the cities demolishion list and those of fellow QCRPA Tony LaHood's properties. These properties were scheduled to come down but the city needed to finish legal paperwork before they started demo. The city doesn't need to be sued for knocking down a house on private property without court documents. DUH!
You see, it is people like 10:57 that have hendered the NEO in the past and these type of people are resposible for our city looking the way it does. My bet 10:57 doesn't even live in Davenport.
What I find interesting that the whole reason the NEO went away was so cuts would not be made in the fire department. There were public safety cuts in the budget and 6 council members felt it was more important to have fire protection then inspector and I agree along with many other citizens who spoke out on this issue. Now with this new budget there is money for inspectors without cuts in public safety - amazing.
Your bet is wrong, as are your facts. I personally know the person that was spoken about at 10:57 pm. He lives south of Locust and has for years. He is not a landlord.
The properties that he spoke of were not those of Mr. LaHood nor were they scheduled for demolition.
And, there were many more that I know about in horrible condition. All were brought first to the attention of the old NEO director and the complaints were ignored. Then, they were brought to the attention of the Council These were not scenarios made up out of the blue. Many of the sitting aldermen even took a tour of these properties. Several of the aldermen complained to the old NEO staff. They too were ignored.
That explains why, in my opinion, the old NEO had to be dismantled. Quite simply, they refused to play by the rules and go after bad properties, after being told to do so numerous times. I agree with qci that there is no need to have the council fire and hire all 800 city employees, but department heads and officials should be subject to council approval. If that had been the case, then perhaps the old NEO could have survived; but not when there is no accountability.
Also, we are re-writing history here. There was a limited budget at the time, and it was the NEO or the fire department, those were the only two choices at the eleventh hour relative to the city budget. Period.
Finally, the fire department was not handed a foolish plan. It is rumored that Mr. Ryan is personal friends with the former NEO director, and that is why he is coming up with a foolish plan, because the old director is miffed and wants to get back at the City's good landlords. Regardless, the new plan does not follow the rules. The rules are:
1. Good properties are to be inspected every six years. Under the fire department's current program, they are be inspecting these good properties every four years. That adds cost to the program, and is a waste of taxpyer dollars. Why are we even concerned with inspecting perfect properties more frequently then we should. It is actually against the law for the fire department to ignore an ordinance, but they are doing so. They may even get sued over it.
2. They want to hire people to start at a compensation package of $54,000.00 per year. That is ridiculous and is not in line with the job market. It is probably double what needs to be paid for new people, and new people are not needed anyway if the rules are followed.
3. If the program guidelines are followed, then there will be no need to hire all these new people, because thousands of dollars of new technology are about to be delivered to the fire department to help them become more efficient. None of that has been accounted for yet.
4. No neighbor or taxpayer has ever said..."please go waste your time inspecting wonderful properties more frequently." In reality, they have complained about bad properties numerous times, but that is the extent of the whole thing. The focus should be on inspecting bad properties more frequently, and leaving the good ones alone.
To 1:03,
Your story made me cry..with laughter! Once again we have a RAT in the wood pile tryng to discredit now Dist. Chief Mike Ryan because the RAT didn't like the way things turned out for his landlord group! Here we go again folks, get ready for round two of aligations from the QCRPA and the rest. We will see the "Dirty Six" Aldermen cut and slash the rental housing program once again in full view of the public.
1:03 or Dan, you need to get out before something else happens to further ruin your perfect world.
God will you back for all the pain and suffering that you have caused. Remember, lying is a sin and one of the Ten Commandments and you will rot in hell.
I don't think we have any perfect properties in Davenport. Even the super well-maintained and managed Lofts have issues once in a while, and 6 years is a long time to trust a landlord.
First of all, I am not Dan, Walter. Second of all, lying is a sin, so I expect where you are going it will be really hot. It is interesting to note that Walter's post had no factual information, and mine had plenty.
Secondly, QCI, the current ordinance requires six year inspections on good properties. I agree no properties are perfect, but many are damn good and do not need inspecting. Most cities in the country, including all of the top ten places to live in the U.S. as rated by Money Magazine, don't have "rental inspection" programs. They have inspection departments where the insepctors do one thing...inspect problem properties...period. That is a much better use of their time.
That is why they are successful. By the way, all owner occupied properties are not nspected in Davenport. To say that the best rental properties need to be inspected more fequently than the worst owner occupied properties is ridiculous. Six years is really
still too short of a time to worry about inspecting good properties, but the landlords will live with it because it is the law in Davenport.
The issue is that the current group in charge are choosing to break the law, and they cannot do that. Plus, QCI, I will give the shirt off my back if you can give me even one example of a great property that was inspected a second time and terrible things were found. It
just does not happen in the real world. The problem is that we are focusing all of our energy on inspecting the best properties, instead of focusing on inspecting the worst properties, which is where we should be concentrating our efforts.
4:50 or Dan, you lost me at the same old "Money Magazine" comments that you used last February. You are starting to chock. Get some new material. Maybe Mike Loos's lawer can help you with that! LOL
And besides, God has already repayed you for some of your sins. Your short, geeky, and have a monk bald spot. Ha HA Ha!!!!
It doesn't matter if you are pro or con this issue, I hope you all will take a minute to email your alderman to let your voice be heard. (Time is short and you can get their email address from the City website). The decision will be made at City Council tomorrow.
Their decision will not only affect the quality of life in our neighborhoods, it will also determine their political fate come November, so tell them how you feel about this issue.
I am sorry QCI - you wanted to aviod this, but that poster is Dan Lubell. We all know him anywhere. We are all soooo tired of him and his rhetoric.
Ald.Lynn,when you conspired with several other alderman to wipe out the NEO department and diss it's program manager, you showed your true colors and the fact you're beholden to special interests. If you vote "no" to the Fire Dept. that is trying to make something out of this wrecked program you will be committing political suicide. We're all watching you !
To 5:29 PM...
No, I am not Dan Lubell, yes I did get the information on the Money Magazine best of from Mr. Lubell. So what? It is still true. I mean look at the arguement...
The best ciites to live in America do not waste their time inspecting properties that everybody knows are in great condition, rather they concentrate their efforts on inspecting and then correcting poor living conditions. That is called efficiency. That is why they are on the top ten best places to live list. By contrast, Davenport inspects everything, has been doing so for twenty years, and it is among the Money Magazine picks for worst living conditions.
So, big surprise, efficiency works.
What does the opposition say to counter this arguement?
"Your short, geeky, and have a monk bald spot. Ha HA Ha!!!!"
The most pathetic part of this is that I am not even Dan, so that does not apply. I hope that people reading this blog will call their aldermen and support re-working this plan to make it better for the the landlords, the tenants and the taxpayers.
Rhetoric, rhetoric, retoric. We have been listening to this same spew for years from these slumlords. I can show you evidence of Dan Lubell properties that were on a four-year cycle. These pictures are of the property during that cycle period. They show siding falling off the home, gutters hanging, soffits in disrepair. The amazing thing about this is that right before his next scheduled inspection, all of this was repaired. Ignore the fact that these conditions existed for months (summer, so no excuse about the weather, Dan) but just imagine what the inside held. God and Dan only know. And these are suppose to be the good landlords.
Why give landlords like this six years of violations so they can finally clean up their mess right before an inspection. The neighborhoods deserve better.
Oh, one more thing, the tenant who lived there wondered why "his" house was being inspected. He was given the news that he was in fact living in a rental property.
Mark my works, this will be a hot debate issue come November. When you have guys like Walter Skrovonski, Tom Carnahan, Matt McDonnell, Jen Olsen and a few more running for office. This has gone on long enough and folks are coming out of the woodwork to take a shot at this standing council. May God love them and bless them.
Well, obviously Walter enjoys posting as two different people. And this really is not about Dan, but if the old NEO was not doing a decent job of inspecting, then that was the problem, not the length of the cycle. The bottom line is that if you can pass 313 different items and get a near perfect inspection, then six years is not too long to wait. And, in the above example, if the property was really as bad as Walter is claiming, all he would have to do is call for a complaint inspection anyway, and that would remove the property from the six year cycle if the story was true.
I hate to say this, but Mr. Skovronski is the one with bad proeprty conditions, and the old NEO let him get away with it. There are pictures on file. Why do you think he wants the old guard back?
Finally, is it really rhetoric to take note of the fact that the best cities in America (as far as living conditions are concerned) do not waste their time over inspecting properties that do not need to be inspected? Instead, they use all of their efforts to correct bad properties. Isn't that just common sense? I am not suggesting that
we stop inspecting even the best properties, because the state law requires that, but we should be putting most of our efforts on the bad properties.
Finally, can you imagine Walter running for office? There are pictures of his property conditions out there, he opposses Bill Lynn's plan of cleaning up crime with the guardian angels, and he even did time in the Federal penn. Oh yes, he would be a wonderful candidate.
I too could get nothing accomplished with the old NEO. The FD has done a far better job then the NEO ever did for me. I do find it interesting that Walter is so out spoken on wanting the NEO back. I have wondered since this started last year why he is so adament about it. If it is Walter filling up these blogs, then he needs to keep in mind that the NEO was cut not due to performance but to prevent loss of fire personal and this seems to be over looked time and again. Also, to all - name calling accomplishes nothing - stick to the facts.
Is Walter going to address every issue tonight at the council meeting like last night?
He reminds me of Mrs. Bell who feels obligated to add comment to most items on the ajenda.
Could someone provide address of Walter's property to see if he has a right to praise NEO or critize the council.
There's almost nothing useful in any of the last dozen comments or so. All we've gotten to is personal attacks and specific situations.
Why do rental properties need to be inspected more than homeowners? Because they're a business. We've always inspected businesses.
Should homeowners be inspected also? Maybe.
Does any of this have anything to do with the fact that it makes more sense to have a single integrated Neighborhood Enhancement Office? Nope...
The QCRPA and BillLynn have always used the homeowner vs landlord excuse for not enforcing our codes.
QCI has a point, the last poster does not, because alderman Lynn and the QCRPA have both been outspoken proponents of inspecting proeprties that need to be inspected.
QCI, nobody is saying that commercial properties should not be inspected. The only arguement is over how often or which types of commercial properties should be inspected. Common sense dictates that the worst properties need to be inspected frequently, and the best ones that have a proven track record should be inspected very infrequently if at all, in order to let the focus be on properties in poor condition.
Should the NEO be a single integrated office? In a perfect world yes. In the real world, they abused power and refused to answer to authority. That combined with the need to save the fire department lead to their demise.
1. It shouldn't be up to landlords to decide how often they get inspected. Advocate for your side (which will always be less inspections) but decisions should not necessarily be made based on landlords' desires.
2. "Common sense" may say you only need to inspect bad properties, but it also says you should only put guilty people in jail. How do you find out if they're guilty? You have a trial. How do you find out if they're bad properties? Inspect them. I don't see an easy way for the city to just "know" which properties are ok and which are bad. Insisting that they've always been fine before is not a valid reason to me. I've always made it through airport security without trouble, but I don't expect them to wave me through because of it.
3. It wasn't Firefighters vs NEO, it was Stormwater fee vs staffing cuts.(or QCI-suggested cell phone tax) If certain Aldermen hadn't needed to look like they were doing something about the fee, we could have had both inspectors and firefighters.
4. Even if all of your points are valid, and I and many other people are wrong on all of our reasons against eliminating NEO, WHY did the change need to be made out of nowhere at a last minute meeting? Why have the DAI process AFTER the department has been eliminated?
The only reason I can see for the underhanded way this was done is that there are underhanded reasons behind it.
QCI, your points are well stated, but I respectfully disagree.
1. Nobody has ever argued that landlords should set their own timetable for inspections. The proof of how often a landlord should be inspected is derived from the results of their inspections. So, if Alexis at Praire Point ocmes out with a wonderful inspection record, we should validate that with a longer time period until they are inspected again.
2. If for some reason a complaint comes in to the inspection department about a great property, the place is inspected again and their is a problem, then they can be moved to a different cycle. By the way, in the real world, this rarely happens. It is mostly a theoretical problem, not a real world problem. But, a wonderful complex such as that is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars if it is to be inspected frequently. In most cities, it would not even be on the charts for inspection unless there was a problem.
If there is a burglery, do the police go through every home in town looking for the stolen goods? No, and they would be highly inefficient if they did so. Rather, they go to the most likely suspects. The same should be true if we want to run an efficient code enforcement office. The proof is in the pudding. The old NEO, and to some extent the fire department, have not yet corrected some really bad properties. Why worry about the best until the worst is cleaned up?
3. The stormwater fee was unbearable in the minds of many, and many people think the City is overstaffed. The NEO was out of control, and a fire company was on the table. Given the fact that there were limited funds due to the
stormwater fee, it did indeed become a fire company vs. a bunch of out of control employees that refused to do their jobs in the old NEO.
4. The change may have appeared to be made at the last minute, but as push came to shove, the old NEO became even more abbrasive to the council and actually flatly refused to inspect some real eyesores. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
......(yawn).....Thanks Dan for your input.
I don't know if that post was from Dan or not, but why do we care? I have to agree with the poster, he made some good points.
To 12:14
..........(yawn, SSDD)......!
SSDD (same s**t, different day)
6:18-don't forget:
...SP..(same person)....
You're really not helping the anti-QCRPA side with posts like the last few. How about some actual rebuttal?
I'm still not satisfied with the whole "straw that broke the camel's back" reason for the last minute destruction of the NEO.
I look at it as the QCRPA getting what they deserve with the 4 year inspections. Ok, they took out the department that may have been giving them trouble, but now we're going to be more strict. I'm sure they're already spooling up the autodialers for more negative campaigning later this year. I hope there's an opposing group letting average non-blog-reading citizens know about the other side of the story.
QCI- there is only so much city employees can say while staying anonymous, But I have your back. Give me sometime, this is like rubbing salt in a wound everytime I read his crap.
QCI,
I read this blog to, and I am not a QCRPAer, just an average citizen. I was downtown and also have been watching this. I think you are wrong, I think that the fire department will be giving out six year cycles. My guess is the QCRPA and the aldermen won the fight, and if we get better inspection service out of this, then it was worth it. I would like to see more over burdened pompous departments take a dive!
6:41, Why do you throw up a smoke screen "I an not a QCRAPer" in the first sentance? This tells me that you are the Housing Director for the QCRAPer. There was no battle here, merely the fire department asked for additional haelp to do just what you are asked of them, to go after bad rental properties. What is your beef? I agree that some of the properties should go to a six year cycle(approx 1% of all rental property) but the larger complexes need to stay on the two yaer. This is about safety, health, and well being for all.
With the old NEO, it was just the licence fee that you were charged each year, now you will be charged a licence fee and and inspection fee, and rightly so. The tax paying single home owners should not be paying for rental inspections. Thus, I believe the fines and fees should go up to support the inspection program. Rental housing IS a business and should be treated so. The city should not be running your business just making sure that you and the rest are runnig it safely and fairly.
I have delt with the inspectors and have had no problem. Built a relationship of trust and found that they are much easier to deal with than fighting over a torn screen. Just repair it and let it go. These fine folks are merely inforcing the codes set forth by our city's fore fathers, thats all. I think they treat everyone the same
Ah, if only that were the case. I am a member of QCRPA, though not the poster at 6:46 am. I am not the housing director either, but I am proud to pay dues to the QCRPA. Your post tells me you are Walter, and frankly if your analysis of the old NEO were correct, then they would still be here. The problem with the old NEO was, they refused to go after bad properties.
I am soooo tired of hearing that the old NEO refused to go after bad properties. Look at LaHood's properties and that squashes your arguement. They closed him down numerous times. If there were properties they didn't go after it was due to alderman interference, outside their jurisdiction or just plain rediculous to do so. I know several of the properties the QCRPA complained about were, and still are, vacant and thus not a top priority for a department that had to deal with scumlords like LaHood who continued to place tenants into properties that were tagged sub-standard.
When the QCRPA blew this somke up the council's ass the former department head (Loose)explained the situation of every single property in a report back to the council. This report proved that the NEO was monitoring every property prior to QCRPA's so called complaints, and recapped past action. That report sufficed the division manager, the City Administartor, the legal staff, and the those on the council not in bed with the QCRPA.
The former department played by the rules. It's not their fault idiots like Lynn, Ambrose, Hammerlink, and Van Fossen don't bother to understand or follow the rules.
Oh, by the way, that property you keep bringing up with a "door to nowhere", that door has a padlock on it which makes it perfectly legal and within the code. Anymore bullshit you want to try and spread?
Wally, lovely use of words such as bullshit and ass and sumlords. That speaks volumes to the intelligent readers of this blog. No, many of the properties the QCRPA complained about were not vacant, they had people at risk living in them. Others were such eyesores that they were contributing to the deterioration of the neighborhoods. In all cases, the former NEO chose to ignore complaint after complaint about these properties, and indeed the CA and the legal staff were not satisfied with the NEO's performance. The department head may have been, and that is a shame if it is true. Nobody deserves to live in such squalor.
With regard to Mr. LaHood, whom you slandered in your last post, it is not true that the City successfuly shut him down. Mr. LaHood bought the worst junk in town and put in all new plumbing, electric, heating etc. all with licenses. Because Mr. LaHood was a member of the QCRPA, the old NEO tried unsucessfuly to shut him down. When you don't play by the rules and it comes to the attention of the public and the aldermen, you are screwing yourself. That is yet another action that got the old NEO in trouble. Funny, but Mr. LaHood has had no issues with the fire department at all. I wonder why? Could it be that they are professionals and the old guard were irresponsible?
To Dan, Van, Mike, or who ever you may be: you seem to think that you have the inside to the story but you don't. I have seen this from the inside having worked closely with the former NEO and I can tell you these folks were frustrated with having you and LaHood asking for special compensation from Malin and Alderman Lynn over reinspection dates and penalty fees. Stating you never received notices and requesting them to be sent to you certified mail at the cost of the taxpayers.
If for any reason that the old NEO was ineffective was truely due to interference from the QCRAPers. You don't know when to back off, you don't know when to shut up, and you surely don't know how to pick your fights. Now that the fire department has the ball, which your primate friend Bill Lynn take full responsability for, you are attacking Dist, Chief Mike Ryan. Really dumb move.
The old NEO has been disbanded, that is true, but now the new and improved Super NEO is coming to speed with all the great stars of the yesterday. Yes, same inspectors with a new arsenal of support. Button down pal, you have wakened a sleeping giant.
By the way, Mr LaHood has sold almost all of his property and has been living on Arlington Av after Lisa kicked him out. Oh yes, the true stings and the public needs to know.
I love how we refer to the QCRPA members as QCRPAers, love that/
Take a look again, it's QCRAPers
Funny Walter. But, alas, not true, nor does it have anything to do with the reality of the new NEO. It will be a cold day in you know where before the innefective corruption that allowed you to run slum properties is re-instated.
A different perspective...
Wally seems like a very angry man, who sees the world in black and white battles, good vs. evil.
Maybe people are actually trying to get along and work things out?
nah..couldn't be. The aldermen and the qcrpa are evil, and Wally is a night in shining armour...right?
right
You know, that is a good point. I have met several of the QCRPA guys that everybody talks about. None of them are slumlords and they all have decent end goals. I have met Wally. The same is true for him. Everybody has a different perspective, but they all want the same end goal...safe housing. When I look at the arguements, I see both sides. Some people think the best rental housing in the area should be inspected every four years, others every six years. Who cares? Both sides agree about slum properties... they should be inspected more frequently. I say lets focus on the bad properties and quit the name calling.
I think the problem is not that there are different "sides". I think the problem is Wally thinks there are different sides. In reality, everybody is on the same side, but Wally is running for office and trying to divide people.
The QCRPA and inspectors will never be on the same side. They want anonimity so they can rape their tenants. The inspectors want want their butts for attacking them. The battle will rage.
That is just the kind of comment I have to disagree with. The QCRPA has consistently stood for quality housing, the idea that they are slumlords doesn't mesh with reality. Under the fire department, the inspectors are required to perform in a more professional manner then the free hand they had with the old NEO, so regardless of who wants who's butt, it can't really happen. If the inspectors are anywhere near professional, then they are on the same side. I don't think even the inspectors care too much about whether they inspect decent properties every four years or six years. I suspect the biggest battle is in Wally's mind.
Here is what this is about...I was at the QCRPA meeting when Wally tried to run for President. The board members exposed his past, he lost the election and so he got all upset at them. Later, he went around making false statements about them and was kicked out of the organization. Prior to that, they all got along. So, now he is on an anti QCRPA rampage, and calls them all slumlords. Nothing to back it up, either.
Post a Comment