City cites Trump lessons

If the city does not have the authority to levy fines, and OSHA doesn't feel that it is within their mandate, then is there no one to hold the builder accountable?

And again, the mystery inspector is mentioned with no name or qualifications.

EXACTLY. This article provides NO answers.

Did the board not ask these questions, or is the article incomplete?

I should have gone to this meeting last night so I could have asked. But why do I have to go out of my way to do what others should be doing?

Why is it so hard to get straight answers about this construction project?

They do not have the authority to fine anyone because they did not grant themselves the authority to do so. In the name of public safety they can do anything. It's hard to get a straight answer for the fear of being held accountable. The money that's fueling the growth of Stamford is stuffed in the mouths of your officials. That's why all you hear is mumbling.
Imagine, the issues that you don't know about.

Stamford Talk wrote:

I should have gone to this meeting last night so I could have asked. But why do I have to go out of my way to do what others should be doing?

No you couldn't have asked any questions, only the BOR members could. What you should have done was contact your reps with your questions so they could have asked them. But since you didn't want "to go out of your way" you have no answers and never will if you just hope everyone else will do it for you.

Stamford Talk wrote:

EXACTLY. This article provides NO answers.
Did the board not ask these questions, or is the article incomplete?
I should have gone to this meeting last night so I could have asked. But why do I have to go out of my way to do what others should be doing?
Why is it so hard to get straight answers about this construction project?

Again..not a shred of evidence the phantom "safety inspector" ever materialized.
No name.
No bio or rationale for selection.
No paper trail of on-site orders, findings, or days and hours of employment.
No detail of cost to the developer.

Obviously, there are no straight answers.

Barnes' best plea is that OSHA wasn't as responsive as he would have liked.

If Stamford doesn't have powers of enforcement on its books, the time to enact them has long since passed. Let's hope for some teeth before the next
fiasco goes any further.

Stamford officials do not care about the citizens in this town.

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's hope for some teeth before the next
fiasco goes any further.

Looks like the tooth fairy already came and took all the teeth and left luxury apartments in their place.

why is this stupid building crammed into the corner right on the street when we have had a huge eyesore of a hole in the ground next to the mall for the past decade.

someone answer me NOW!!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!

Stamford Talk wrote:

EXACTLY. This article provides NO answers.
Did the board not ask these questions, or is the article incomplete?
I should have gone to this meeting last night so I could have asked. But why do I have to go out of my way to do what others should be doing?
Why is it so hard to get straight answers about this construction project?

hmmmm.....if you have concerns about an issue that involves government, and you are a citizen, whose job is it other than yours? Why do you see it as "going out of your way"? The democratic process IS the way of all its citizens.

The Bd of Reps held an inquiry meeting. It was a public meeting. That means the "public" in allowed to attend, though usually not speak. So why weren't you there?

Here is how to get "straight answers": Call your representative. Ask him/her if he/she will be at the inquiry meeting. If so, list all the questions you have that you want answers to, and say you expect your representative to ask them and get answers. If your representative will not be there, ask for the names of the committee members who will be there, and call them with the same questions. Tell them you will be in the audience to see if the questions are asked.

Then attend the meeting yourself. See for yourself what questions are asked and how they are answered. THEN, if you don't get straight answers, you have a legitimate complaint. Failing that, though, you are not in a poosition to complain about the lack of answers. It is entirely possible that the answers were given and you weren't there to hear them.

You may think it is the Advocate's job to get the answers, but it is not. The Advocate provides a summary of what occurs at a meeting for the benefit of the citizens who do not attend. But as Woody Allen once said: "Half of life is showing up". If you can't be bothered to attend important public meetings, don't expect the Advocate to do it for you. The Advocate is a commercial venture, not a public one. They hire inexperienced reporters for a pittance because their goal is profit, not public interest.

The fulcrum on wich the democratic process balances is the personal involvement of its citizenry. Sometimes that means attending a meeting on a night when you might have other plans.

Bill Cosby wrote:

I'll tell you what was done to protect the residents of Stamford, NOTHING!!! Malloy's pockets got full while the residents were in danger. Anyone who votes for Malloy again is a fool.

The idea that Malloy perosnally benefited from this project has been mentioned many times. Does anyone have any evidence whatever that it is true?

YOU claim "Malloy's pockets got full". Based on what information?

Public officials in this country are restricted from suing for slander. But it is still slander. Only cowards hide behind anonymity to make slanderous accusations against people.

The developer of Trump Parc doesn't own the hole in the ground, and the owner of it isn't interested in developing it at this time.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKK!

David,

Please dont be sore at me

"DON'T SAY IT Mr. Trump!!!:-("

Because there are so many problems, and questions unansered,EVIDENTLY,The city REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS WELL ENOUGH (even though we appreciate their unpaid efforts - but they did volunteer for the elected position - and took an oath to protect the STAMFORD citizenry). As for the newspaper reporting, well, the public can help them by calling in their concerns, and providing information - without having to give their name out to the PUBLIC. Hope this helps...I will wait and see.

If they are complaining about the building being built on a small parcel, why choose a small parcel like that to build on anyway? there are pleanty of other bigger parcels avaiable in Stamford that wouldnt be causing a problem like this.If they chose a bigger lot then there wouldn't be any complaints, shutdowns and or problems with things falling onto the street.

annonymous wrote:

If they are complaining about the building being built on a small parcel, why choose a small parcel like that to build on anyway? there are pleanty of other bigger parcels avaiable in Stamford that wouldnt be causing a problem like this.If they chose a bigger lot then there wouldn't be any complaints, shutdowns and or problems with things falling onto the street.

You, and others, seems to miss the point. You build on the property YOU own; not on the property someone else owns. You don't walk around town, pick a property you like, and "choose" to build on it. Why is that so hard to understand?

annonymous wrote:

If they are complaining about the building being built on a small parcel, why choose a small parcel like that to build on anyway? there are pleanty of other bigger parcels avaiable in Stamford that wouldnt be causing a problem like this.If they chose a bigger lot then there wouldn't be any complaints, shutdowns and or problems with things falling onto the street.

I'm sure it's all about location, location, location. The current location will be right across the street from the to-be renovated Mill River park -- a big selling point when you are trying to sell luxury apartments exceeding $1 mil.

The tradeoff, as we are learning, is a not-so-safe construction site.

This is an OUTRAGE!!!

Devils Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure it's all about location, location, location. The current location will be right across the street from the to-be renovated Mill River park -- a big selling point when you are trying to sell luxury apartments exceeding $1 mil.
The tradeoff, as we are learning, is a not-so-safe construction site.

Not really. The Ritz-Carlton site isn't across the stret from a park; it's adjacent to a subsidized housing development. And Highgrove isn't across the street from a park; it's squeezed into an ell shape around a corner lot.

It is all about whether a person or company who owns land can raise the money to build on it profitably. The owners of the Trump site (1) came up with a bold proposal,(2) found financing for it; and (3) spent time and money, and tooki a risk getting it past the Zoning Board.

Call it free enterprise; call it entrepeneurship; but while other sites lie vacant looking for a bold proposal or financing, Trump Parc moved ahead. i think that's "the American Way".

Publius wrote:

<quoted text>
Not really. The Ritz-Carlton site isn't across the stret from a park; it's adjacent to a subsidized housing development. And Highgrove isn't across the street from a park; it's squeezed into an ell shape around a corner lot.
It is all about whether a person or company who owns land can raise the money to build on it profitably. The owners of the Trump site (1) came up with a bold proposal,(2) found financing for it; and (3) spent time and money, and tooki a risk getting it past the Zoning Board.
Call it free enterprise; call it entrepeneurship; but while other sites lie vacant looking for a bold proposal or financing, Trump Parc moved ahead. i think that's "the American Way".

Yes, the owners of Trump site did all that, but I'm sure the location near the park helped justify the risks they took. No doubt the other developments will do well too (well, maybe), but if I could afford a luxury apartment and had a desire to live downtown, Trump Parc would be my first choice because of its location.

David wrote:

The developer of Trump Parc doesn't own the hole in the ground, and the owner of it isn't interested in developing it at this time.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKK!

Are you absolutely positive about your statement? I think there are errors in both ststements. I believve the Rich family is involoved in both parcels, and why would someone want to keep paying taxes on a piece of land? Sure it will appreciate but not as much as the taxes over 20 years! If you do know more, please elaborate. Thanks.