Glen deserves a big settlement and I hope he gets it. The whole thing was a big cluster f***, nobody seems to know who said the building was imminently dangerous and the wrong procedures were followed.
This is what happens when patronage jobs are given to people not qualified or competent to do their jobs....
This will never go to court, a jury would sympathize (and rightfully so) with Muncy and would give him probably millions in sympathy...
The city has no recourse but to settle with a nice settlement...
Even this sensational news report admits the previous owner and subject of the story, Glen Muncy, had already turned the building over to a new owner well before it was demolished. The news reporter even reports the city has already settled with the building owner. What is the issue?
It is a sad legacy for someone who might otherwise be highly regarded and well remembered, but the bottom line is Glen Muncy is trying to rip off city taxpayers with a sympathy story after he had already sold his building.
The building was not only an eyesore, but it was not safe. Bricks were falling off of it on a regular basis, the roof was gone. How long had it stood after the fire? years? I am glad the city stepped up and tore it down.
Since we aren't privy to the details of the settlement we don't know if Glen or his brother was compensated for property Glenn may have owned on the premises...
Regardless of the condition of the property the City didn't go about the proper procedure for having the place condemned. The City has admitted the fact by settling out of court...
There are procedures and laws for condemnation and they weren't followed in this case so the blame goes to the City. If the proper procedure would have been followed there would be no recourse by the owner(s)...The city is getting exactly what they deserve for incompetency and negligence of following procedure...
Hell they don't even know who said the building was unsafe and needed to be rased....
The news story reports the city has already settled with the building's owner. Any personal property the previous owner had not removed is an issue between the two owners.
I'm glad Glen is back and healthy, I really am. Overall, he's a pretty good guy.
But this lawsuit stinks of opportunity (by him) and the ability (by LW) to make Mayor Moore look bad. Which, I agree with you, by the way, the way that the city handled this wasn't very good.
Please don't forget that Glen held onto this building for 11 years and let it deteriorate to the point that it WAS a big hazard, and that he had several liens against this building at the time of the demolition. Was the sale to his brother even legal?
The city didn't acquit itself well in this situation, and while I do have sympathy for Glen and how his health wasn't good, I can't drum up much for him over the loss of his building and am having a very hard time buying the fact that he had all this equipment inside of it.
I wanted to purchase the building a month before it was torn down, Mike Moore told me it was a bad idea because it was going to be demolished soon. I was there the night it was demolished , many fire fighters and city employees said, this isn't needed and the building wasn't a danger. Mike Moore jumped Shane Corbins ass that night for not agreeing with him on the buildings condition.
Muncy will probably get a big settlement over this.
ReplyDeleteGlen deserves a big settlement and I hope he gets it. The whole thing was a big cluster f***, nobody seems to know who said the building was imminently dangerous and the wrong procedures were followed.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when patronage jobs are given to people not qualified or competent to do their jobs....
This will never go to court, a jury would sympathize (and rightfully so) with Muncy and would give him probably millions in sympathy...
The city has no recourse but to settle with a nice settlement...
Even this sensational news report admits the previous owner and subject of the story, Glen Muncy, had already turned the building over to a new owner well before it was demolished. The news reporter even reports the city has already settled with the building owner. What is the issue?
ReplyDeleteIt is a sad legacy for someone who might otherwise be highly regarded and well remembered, but the bottom line is Glen Muncy is trying to rip off city taxpayers with a sympathy story after he had already sold his building.
The building was not only an eyesore, but it was not safe.
ReplyDeleteBricks were falling off of it on a regular basis, the roof was gone.
How long had it stood after the fire?
years?
I am glad the city stepped up and tore it down.
Since we aren't privy to the details of the settlement we don't know if Glen or his brother was compensated for property Glenn may have owned on the premises...
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the condition of the property the City didn't go about the proper procedure for having the place condemned. The City has admitted the fact by settling out of court...
There are procedures and laws for condemnation and they weren't followed in this case so the blame goes to the City. If the proper procedure would have been followed there would be no recourse by the owner(s)...The city is getting exactly what they deserve for incompetency and negligence of following procedure...
Hell they don't even know who said the building was unsafe and needed to be rased....
The way the City went about it the Bldg. Commissioner could write a letter saying so and so says your house is unsafe then proceed to tear it down...
ReplyDeleteThat's just not the way things work the taxpayers are once again paying for the incompetency and unqualified ignorance of city officials...
Don't know who made the determining call but the Bldg. Comm., City Attorney and mayor should share in the blame on this one....
The news story reports the city has already settled with the building's owner. Any personal property the previous owner had not removed is an issue between the two owners.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Glen is back and healthy, I really am. Overall, he's a pretty good guy.
ReplyDeleteBut this lawsuit stinks of opportunity (by him) and the ability (by LW) to make Mayor Moore look bad. Which, I agree with you, by the way, the way that the city handled this wasn't very good.
Please don't forget that Glen held onto this building for 11 years and let it deteriorate to the point that it WAS a big hazard, and that he had several liens against this building at the time of the demolition. Was the sale to his brother even legal?
The city didn't acquit itself well in this situation, and while I do have sympathy for Glen and how his health wasn't good, I can't drum up much for him over the loss of his building and am having a very hard time buying the fact that he had all this equipment inside of it.
I wanted to purchase the building a month before it was torn down, Mike Moore told me it was a bad idea because it was going to be demolished soon. I was there the night it was demolished , many fire fighters and city employees said, this isn't needed and the building wasn't a danger. Mike Moore jumped Shane Corbins ass that night for not agreeing with him on the buildings condition.
ReplyDeleteStill a little sore over the Redevelopment Commission not giving you the 10th St entrance to the city project for your $1 bid?
ReplyDelete