"City Councilwoman Nancy Hoffmann’s company, South End Properties LLC, was cited by the city on Wednesday for violating the Good Repair ordinance — a regulation she helped craft and pass." [emphasis added]
[snip]
"The citation said Hoffmann’s company received a warning about violations such as broken windows and boarded-up areas last July." [note: According to county records, Hoffman's company purchased both buildings in October of last year.]
[snip]
"Hoffmann said she bought the buildings last year and has been working toward a renovation of them using historic tax credits."Hoffman also was quoted as saying: "These things don’t happen overnight."
Here's the problem, Hoffman not only voted for the ordinance she is violating, she helped craft a more-stringent version (that did not pass) and was unmoved by concerns expressed at the time by fellow council person T. Dianne Bellamy-Small about "expediting improvements versus compassionate treatment of property owners."
Now Hoffman is pleading that these kinds of repairs take time and for some compassionate understanding. She may have a good point. However, if Hoffman is finding the ordinance under which her properties were cited is too demanding, she should go back to council and, with her experience as a guide, suggest loosening the requirements of the ordinance. What she cannot do is remain in support of the ordinance while she makes excuses for why she is not complying with it. That kind of self-serving double standard is not desirable in elected officials.
you got that rght!
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone plan to point out Killian's error of assuming that the warning letter went to Hoffman's company? The inspector wrote that "a warning letter was issued" not that it was issued to her company.
ReplyDeleteShe bought the building in October, thus she could not have been issued a warning letter in July.
If everyone wasn't in a rush to please Ben, and would slow down and think, these types of errors would not occur.
Also of interest is how did Ben get the notice letter on the same day it was issued, and likely before the property owner received the letter?
Poor little Ms Hoffman,she did not know she was in violation.
ReplyDeleteShe turned in her neighbor for the same violations and she is an elected official; she does know better.
Anonymous the second, as I wrote in this post: "note: According to county records, Hoffman's company purchased both buildings in October of last year."
ReplyDeleteAs for public records, once they exist, they are public and available for inspection, there is no protocol whereby they may be withheld so that certain people get to see them first.
ReplyDeleteIt does appear to have been an error to assume that the warning went to Hoffman's company -- but that was me quoting the inspector's citation, which said that warnings were issued regarding the property and that no progress has been made regarding them, hence the citation.
ReplyDeleteAxiomatically, the inspector was under the impression that the same company that owns the property now received a warning in July.
Definitely an error, but not mine and not my assumption -- I just reported the contents of the inspector's citation.
Tomorrow's story, however, makes clear that:
A) What was issued in July was not, according to the city, not an official, building-specific warning.
B) Hoffmann's company didn't own the buildings then.
The point remains that her buildings are in violation of the ordinance she approved and that her response is of excuses for delay.
ReplyDeleteBut it was your error Joe as the reporter and hence the gatekeeper of accuracy that allowed the incorrect information to be widely disseminated. Anyone who knows much about downtown knows she just bought the buildings in October. It has been reported in TBJ and other papers in association with the Gibbs Hundred activity across the street. Your first act should have been to verify who owned the building at the time of the July citation. Instead you are complicit in allowing Ben to manufacture a scandal built on a house of cards. Hoffman deserves the right to due process. Since she just bought the building in October her due process is to receive a warning. Instead she was skewered and called "a rat" among other things across the local blogs based in part or your inaccurate reportage.
ReplyDeleteIf a city inspector cites a councilwoman's company for something like this, it's a story.
ReplyDeleteIf that city inspector is in error, that is also a story.
I wrote both of those stories this week.
I'm a journalist at a daily newspaper. "Our best today, better tomorrow," as Ben Bradlee used to tell his staff.
I'd be more interested in engaging in a further conversation with you about my responsibility and how you think I should do my job if you were willing to the do the simplest thing I do every day - sign your name to what you write.
It's certainly a delicious irony about the stricter version of the ordinance that Hoffmann supported, of which she now is at risk of running afoul. However, it's not accurate to say that Hoffmann is "pleading... for some compassionate understanding." It sounds like the ordinance is being followed. She's received the proper warning and now has to repair those properties. Period. Where exactly is the double standard?
ReplyDeleteReally? The ordinance disallows boarded up doors and broken windows. Hoffman's buildings have been in violation of the ordinance since she bought them. The violations don't begin with the warning or citation, they begin with having boarded up windows and doors. After eight months of such conditions, Hoffman's explanation for not bringing her buildings into conformity wit the code she crafted is, "these things take time."
ReplyDeleteShe had the power as a council woman to craft an ordinance that would have allowed people to have buildings with broken windows and boarded up doors to leave them in such disrepair for extended periods while they were "taking the time," to arrange for financing. She did not. But now, that's her excuse. That's the double standard: between what she codified for everyone else and what she protests are her reasons for delay.
By your reasoning, it would be "a special entitlement" for a state legislator who supported increased penalties for speeding to be caught speeding. That would indeed be ironic and fun to blog about, but there would be no double standard unless the penalties the legislator supported were NOT applied to him.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting that you shouldn't enjoy the political theater that Hoffmann has created for herself, and "the optics" aren't good. But as long as the ordinance is being enforced, there's no double standard.
She is pleading for a double standard. (Your legislator complaining about his speeding ticket saying it takes time for him to slow down.)
ReplyDeleteAnd is the ordinance being enforced? She went eight months in violation without a citation and, my understanding is, her please have resulted in a reversal of the citation.
It's more than optics. It's a pleading for special treatment, a pleading that seems to have been successful.
According to Joe's reporting, the citation was reversed because it hadn't been executed properly.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news-record.com/news/government/article_36d9719e-eccc-11e3-a11e-0017a43b2370.html
It would have been nice if Hoffmann had acknowledged that she previously underestimated the challenge of bringing older buildings up to code. But the fact remains (according to Joe's reporting) that she hadn't been issued a warning and was therefore issued an improper citation. "Pleading" for due process isn't a double standard.
Nor is it special treatment.
ReplyDeleteAs for my legislator example, yes, it would be amusing if he complained that it takes time to slow down, especially if he poo-poohed that notion in previous public discussions. But if the law against speeding is applied to him, then his complaint is nothing more than amusing.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be going to great lengths to excuse Hoffman's behavior. I find it repugnant. I'll just chalk up our disagreement to differing standards.
ReplyDeleteI thought I was having a conversation, not "going to great lengths." My bad.
ReplyDelete