A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his roof. The guy intended to repair the roof and other damage. He put up some temporary framing and covered the whole roof with a giant tarp. (I saw some photos). He was still living in the house since much of it's still intact. However the city put a "Condemned" sign on the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house is going to be demolished.
What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged beyond repair. It lost about 1/3 of it's roof. All the walls are fine except for some missing siding along the top, and several windows are broken, and have plywood on them. The debris has been cleaned up.
This isn't right or fair. When an addition is being added to a house, there is a point when the additions has walls but no roof, and the original part of the house can be lived in. What makes this different? Not only do the pictures show that the walls are all intact, but the guy said it's all still solid. The tornado just ripped off the roof on that one end of the house tearing ir off the top plate of the walls. (Probably because it has a large overhang).
Somehow I dont think this is right. Does anyone know the legal definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).
It is right. It means the house does not meet building code and no one can live in it. It can be brought up to code and made liviable after an inspection.
American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide. The city hall building permits office can tell you. Most jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate your home if it is threatened by fire.) This authority may prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.
You realize there are always (at least) two sides to every story, and that you've only heard one side. For all you know, you've been told only what little this fellow understands, or remembers. Or you may have been told a carefully-edited or creatively-enhanced account. You just don't know, until you hear the city's POV.
As for permission, that's the whole building codes thing. You live within an organized community, you agree to abide by whatever laws or rules the community establishes. So quit whining and follow the laws, or git.
From the photos, that house is not damaged
And what about utilities? It's not unusual for a municipality to condemn a home as unfit for habitation when utilities (especially water) are unavailable. Several tornado-struck communities have been dealing with broken water and gas lines that have rendered neighborhoods unhabitable for the time being. Once those repairs are done, service will be restored and people will be permitted to re-occupy homes that, though damaged, are otherwise habitable. You haven't mentioned the state of utilities in his neighborhood. Maybe your friend hasn't mentioned it to you. Maybe this is the reason his home has been (temporarily) condemned.
Why don't you phone the city and ask _them_ that question? They, and only they, have the answer. Well, actually, they probably shared that with your friend, too - and he probably "forgot" to tell that to you, because that'd derail his whine about how "unfair" the city is being to him.
Sheesh. If he's that gung-ho about remaining *on* his property for the duration, he should pitch a tent. Then again, if it _is_ a utilities issue behind the non-occupancy order, he won't be allowed to do that, either, until service is restored.
Unfortunately some government folks tend to be "overenthusiastic". Clearly we have no idea of the damage and the OPs friend needs to start making phone calls if the level of damage does not justify the condemnation order.
As far as "overenthusiastic" folks. My brother lives not far from a stream. There has never been a recorded flood on his or adjoining properties. The government had a project to line the creek (concrete floor and walls) to protect a lower area but the total job was not complete.
We had very heavy rains and water was running on the outside of the new walls and it flooded the road and was close to my brothers and his neighbors houses.
My brother walks their dog along the stream and knew the problem was branches and debris were blocking the uncompleted head end forcing water to travel outside the walls.
There is a large parking lot that was filled with all sorts of government emergency management vehicles so he went over to tell them where the problem was. They told him it was now an "emergency zone" and they would have him arrested if he didn't leave. After a few hours there were even more vehicles with flashing lights in the parking lot and the water was rising. One of my brothers neighbors has a construction business so they compared notes and he went off to his business and brought a backhoe back and drove right into the "emergency zone" and up the the area where it was blocked and cleared it.
I went down to the area and it looked like a movie set with all of the flashing lights and speakers announcing 10-99, unit 56, 10-62 10-4.
Oh, for f*ck's sake. Here we have yet again another numbnut who assumes he knows just as much about the situation as the people who are actually DEALING WITH IT. You, sir, are a fool. Here's the awful truth:
They don't just have bodies. They have PARTS of bodies. Worse yet, the parts don't all match up.
Many of the intact bodies are so battered as not to be recognizable. In these cases, the only way these remains can be ID'd is either from identifiable marks such as tattoos, or by DNA testing.
At the beginning, they DID permit visual IDs of some bodies. Some remains were thus ID'd and claimed by family members. Who sent them to funeral homes, had them embalmed and cleaned up, and then, prior to the services, took another look and realized they body they'd claimed was that of a stranger. This accomplished nothing but traumatizing the grieving family all over again. And who did the families blame? The authorities, for not applying sufficiently stringent standards to ensure this couldn't happen. Which is why the coroners clamped down.
I suppose you think the gov't should just open up the morgue, invite everybody in, and let the families sort it all out themselves. A body parts swap meet.
The problem is people like you. Idiots who assume they know just as much as the people who are actually dealing with the situation. You don't think anything through. You don't start with the idea that the experts could possibly have information you don't posses. No, because you have the analytic and whining capacity of an eight-year-old: "But WHY? You're just a big meanie!"
Grow the f*ck up. And acknowledge that there are people who know more than you.
Provide a link that says the majority of the bodies that authorities refuse to allow victims families to ID are in that condition. I've heard many news reports and NONE indicate that this is the core of the issue.
The fact that some are so battered doesn't mean you should not allow identification of those that are.
Yes, but again, if you have a body that isn't in that condition, the above is no excuse. Let's say they have one 75 year old female body, intact, that matches the description of a family with a missing person. No excuse for not allowing access.
If that happened, it's still no excuse to tell grieving families they have to wait 2 weeks for DNA instead of being able to identify their bodies. Geez, DNA testing has only been around for a couple of decades. How do you think we got along until then? There was no widespread calamity from allowing personal ID of bodies.
Never said that. Nor did that occur prior to the miracle of DNA testing.
That surely doesn't include you, who are a profanity spouting imbecile.
A clear example of govt over-reaching. Ever hear of a generator? Utilites are nice, but clearly not a necessity. And if some disaster victim wanted to live in his house without utilities, I say it should be up to him, not guys like you, who think the typical guy is stupid and needs control freaks like you to decide for him.
I guess the idea that a man's home is his castle is foreign to you. How is it that people go camping without utilities? I guess big govt should ban that as unsafe too.
Typical. Instead of living in his own house, govt should force him into a tent.
Why shouldn't they control it? They're paying for it. Since it's tax dollars that pay for the food in the schools, perhaps you would prefer to vote on what is served in the lunchroom.
Perhaps you should visit countries that really have no freedoms. There are places where you could be "disappeared" for writing what you just wrote.
Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting our freedoms, but America is far from the dictatorship you seem to think it is.
I sympathize with your position. The sad truth is that every state has laws on the books giving the governor - or his representative - emergency powers to do just about anything in a declared emergency. They can forcibly relocate you, confiscate your property, or, until recently, sequester your firearms.
Writ smaller, city governments have similar powers
No one making comments here on this newsgroup knows anything about the condition of the remains of the victims in Joplin, MO...
Do you think that you would be able to identify a family member who didn't have a face anymore ?
Do you think that allowing random people who
*insist* that their missing relative(s) must be at that mortuary to view the bodies of the victims damaged and all would serve any useful purpose, or would it possibly add to the trauma...
DNA and dental records have become the standard for identifying victims of natural disasters who have been separated from their identification for a reason, there are very few chances for mis-identification...
Typical. First you claim no one knows the condition of the bodies. Then YOU drag in the no face BS. Show us a link that says that is the condition of all of the bodies being denied visual identification. And if the federal official I saw being interviewed had made that claim said that, I would not have a problem. His attitude was rules are rules, that's the way it is. Maybe you like and trust big govt, some of us do not.
Who said anything about allowing random people to view bodies?
What did we do prior to recent history, when DNA became available? Did the world just start for you 15 years ago?
Here's another thought. Let's accept that DNA testing is necessary to identify the bodies in Joplin. Why should it take 2 weeks when Bin Laden was identifed via DNA within hours? If they can do it in Afghanistan, then if the govt is so competent and caring, why not for the grieving families in Joplin?
Let us just say that the military has access to resources that FEMA can only see in its most raunchy wet dreams...
Plus, they had already obtained familial DNA to compare the sample against which were waiting in the system for the unknown sample to match up with...
The "taking two weeks" deal is because the lab has to handle adding the unknown decedent's sample to the system, then the samples offered up by relatives for comparison and then performing a retest in the event of a match to confirm it...
Military labs have almost unlimited resources to do such testing...
Civilian labs are so overloaded and it could take several weeks just to process the samples taken... I know of one criminal case that was solved less than a week after the woman was murdered, it just took the state crime lab four more years to catch up on the processing backlog and match the DNA found on the victim to one of the guys that offered up a sample mere days after the murder took place to exonerate himself...
So if you find such delays truly objectionable and the fact that big government can't be trusted then there is no solution which would ever satisfy you on this issue as the only way for quicker turnaround times is throwing shit loads of money into the civilian crime/scientific labs that currently exist...
RCARD Remote controlled adraptive repair devices. They're expensive to buy and have to be rented with an operator That's why it's best not to get your building condemned.
If you have vacant land condemned, you have to water the grass by remoted control. At least that's not very expensive.
Let's just say that once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Some googling shows that DNA testing can be done in as little as 72 hours without access to any secret military capability.
DNA is also readily available from the grieving families in Joplin who are standing there asking to be allowed to ID the bodies. All they have to do is take a swab of spit. And if they haven't got the DNA, then it would seem foolish to be saying the testing will take
2 weeks. With no DNA it would be completely open ended.
More BS. They don't have to add anything to a system, nor should they be adding non criminals DNA to any govt database. They have the DNA profile from the body and the DNA profile submitted by the family. They compare those. End of story.
And that is the system you are defending? Sounds like it supports my case of uncaring, incompetent govt.
I'd just let the families ID the body, which is what they want to do. . If the govt then wants to hold the body for however long it takes for them to screw around with DNA for final verification, that's fine too. I just don't think they should be telling grieving families to sit around and wait 2 weeks when there are alternatives.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news:a3514843- snipped-for-privacy@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
BS snipped.
You just read in this thread were a body had been identified by relatives and taken to the undertaker who prepared it for the wake/viewing. Then the relatives realized that whom they thought was their relative, wasn't. SO much more care needs to be exercised. Remember that bodies and faces often get severely distorted post mortem,making identification by non- experts difficult.
I'm no expert on DNA testing, but I know a little about it. DNA identification is the most reliable way to rule /out/ a relationship. It is more difficult to precisely identify someone if there isn't a previous sample available of that particular person. Samples also have to be carefully processed (especially for eventual later retesting), which takes time. In the case of having many victims in a community were there may be many related people, it may be necessary to do many tests to verify minute differences. On top of that, the hospital in Joplin was practically destroyed, and laboratory facilities probably had to be recruited elsewhere. There are no "flying DNA labs" on standby. Identification of (parts found of) victims of 9/11 took a long time for as well. In fact the temporary building to house/refrigerate the remains is still visible today on google by using the satellite view of New York City.
For ObL everything was set up for a rapid test that would prove or disprove who it was. The test itself is simple. Add samples of DNA of subject and controls prepared for the test to little slots in an agarose gel (looks similar to Jello), turn on the power that sets up an electric field, wait 20 minutes or so, add acolor reagent, then take a picture of the UV fluorescence of the bands. Now determine the similarities and dissimilarities in the banding patterns. Voilá! But you need to have the right controls and standards on that same gel. And so on ... Maybe you get the extent of the puzzle now, if there are several hundred samples, all with proper controls etc.
I guess I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about the lunchrooms, I'm talking about vending machines. There was a time that all they contained was candy, soda and other junk food. Then they added fruit, grinola bars and healthy stuff. This was a good thing. But now some places are banning all soda, candy bars, etc. EXCUSE ME.... Who the f*ck gives these officials the right to dictate what my child is allowed to eat? Sure, I agree that they should eat more of the healthy stuff, but banning certain foods, isn't that communistic? They're banning adults from smoking, banning our kids from eating a candy bar or a soda, they already banned marijuana (and I do not smoke it, nor do I endorse drugs), but marijuana is a plant. Who has the right to tell us what plants we can and can not grow, eat, smoke, or whatever. Yet they allow alcohol (because it's a big profit business), and alcohol is far worse than pot.
What's next? The Amer Dental Assoc claims that citrus fruits, tomatoes and others are bad for our teeth because of the acids. Will those be banned next?
My main gripe with the govt is mostly all based on this concept that they must protect us from ourselves and most of that is due to all this medical/health crap. It's the goddamn insurance companies that are causing it, so they dont have to pay any money out if Bob gets cancer from smoking, or suzie, a high school girl gets fat from drinking soda, or all of us who drive might have a wreck and thus we're forced to wear seatbelts, which in some cases are deadly in a crash and fire, because the person is trapped.
Shouldn't all of these things be MY and YOUR choice? Or in the case of minors, be up to the parents to decide? What gives the cops the right to (legally steal) my money because I choose to not wear my seatbelt feeling they can be a trap, and they restrict my driving movements.
Everyone uses this old worn out excuse. Yea there are places that have less freedoms, but there are places that actually have more now, England comes to mind.
I dont complain so much about laws needed to protect OTHERS. Speed limit restrictions and laws to prevent murder and other crimes come to mind, but they need to stop protecting us from ourselves. If my kids are getting good grades, they deserve a candy bar and soda. And if I want to smoke, that's my choice. And in that regard, I think second hand smoke is over-rated, but I'll respect others in a restaurant by not smoking or having a separate non-smoking section. But now, at least half the states have totally banned smoking in bars. Well, if I cant smoke in a bar, I'll drink at home, where I can smoke. Once again, who gives these govt. officials the right to ban smoking in all bars? That choice should be up to the bar owner. The patrons will go to the bar that suits their needs. But once again our nazi-like govt. is controlling us and in this case, causing many bar owners to go out of business.
And just remember, although you may have voted. Did you really select these politicians? NO, the electorial college did.
Correct. Even the Jews and Muslims have their kosher and halal prohibitions. In religions somewhat older than the US Civil War, food prohibitions made societal sense. In the days before refrigeration and the EPA, certain foods like shellfish and pork could be quite lethal. Pork and shellfish are difficult to keep salmonella-free because of how and where they live. Though the Jews didn't know anything about bacteria back then, they saw their fellow villagers got sick when they ate certain things. From that beginning a lot of other food restrictions came into play that didn't quite make as much sense and were ritualistic rather than protective.
Americans have had food "restrictions" as in not eating oysters in months without the letter R. (-: That's once again a health issue related to past lack of refrigeration. The months without the letter R in them are basically warm months where certain naturally occurring marine bacteria, like Vibrio V. grow the fastest.
Anyone who is or knows someone who is unusually sensitive to that bacteria (my mom was) is not likely to forget what happens when they ingest too much Vibrio: Both ends of the alimentary canal start firing at the same time often accompanied by high fever and delirium. You have a basically normal well human being turn into a writhing lunatic, still violently retching long after the stomach has been emptied. I was six when it happened to my mom and when you're that young and your primary caregiver is as sick as you've ever seen anyone get, it sticks in your mind. I am sure those sorts of experiences are what create dietary restrictions and rituals. I imagine a newly formed religion might want to create some of their own dietary rules, just for parity's sake. (-:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.