Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Panel considers construction wording change

March 12, 2014

SALEM — A request to clean up language regarding certificates of occupancy turned into a discussion about whether Salem should have a qualified building inspector on staff for construction and......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

JamesAustin

Mar-14-14 2:31 AM

"maybe a cronie needs a job"

EATTHERICH can you explain what you mean by that statement.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-14-14 2:25 AM

Mingus, also, can you like spare us your "you people are hilarious, and I am done with this stupid conversation and I am not wasting any more time on this."

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-14-14 2:18 AM

I am now, leaning towards the idea that the Cahills stated about reversing the process. Can you explain to us how changing the process order of the building requirements correlates to your comment about Cahill being a snake oil salesman, you want to hamper development in the city, follow him."

How will a process reversal benefit only Cahill and not anybody else in the City? How will that reverse process that every other City has in Ohio where the zoning permit comes first in the process hamper development in the town if we follow that snake oil salesman?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-14-14 2:10 AM

"Part of dealing it out is being able to have it dished back at you."

ts1227, I understand that even though I agree with watchdog it is going to have to be expected of every one on here, let me try your advice and see if it works. :)

Mingus, you asked of watchdog to "Provide an example of how city council has worked against growth and hindered development."

In my opinion she already gave an example in her actual comment you came unglued over. I take it she probably does have some further thoughts to elaborate on it as she indicated her last few comments. I took a look at what the Cahill's said in the paper and I took some advice from watchdog she mentioned on another comment section and did some of my own homework.

So, Mingus, you made this statement. "Cahill is a snake oil salesman, you want to hamper development in the city, follow him."

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 10:40 PM

I won’t withdraw what I said about the Cahill’s. I will not stoop as low as Grant and change my views or my own opinion all because I disagree with the Cahill’s on another issue. That is not how I roll. This isn’t a popularity contest. This is not about hating people and going as far as changing up your own views and opinions all because you hate somebody period and you don’t want to agree with them on anything they say. I am not giving in on that and Grant can accept it or not.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 10:40 PM

My comment was directed to Councilwoman Dickey. Not Grant. In fact, I probably would have answered Grant's question as I have done in the past but it would not make a difference. Grant's on a mission and he has made me his target for whatever selfish reason...…don’t care at this point. I did not dish out anything to Grant. People have had enough of it and I am not going to keep hearing people make the statements “Watchdog and Grant, you need stop this.” I answer him, it just goes on and on and Grant plays his normal plot line attack. It is upsetting other people. I am not going to get caught up in it anymore. I am sorry...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 10:39 PM

ts1227 sez: "She does have a right to an opinion, James. However, if one chooses to be very vocal and also take off the wall stances, people have the right to call that person out as well.

Part of dealing it out is being able to have it dished back at you."

How about you explain why that rule only apply towards me and nobody else? Grant ripped apart the Cahill's made some really off the wall remarks, you read it, you read Jame's comment. James gave him back a direct question and Grant dodged him like he normally does with others and myself. If you want to get on Grant's wagon and shore him up that is okay by me. But you really should make sure the guy you hop on the wagon with plays by the same rules your punching out. It does nothing for your credibility...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 9:35 PM

Oh and one more thing Grant. Take your own comment and compare it to the comments you trashed out here against the Cahills.

You can't have only your way Grant.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 9:33 PM

Mar-12-14 11:14 AM Agree | Disagree

You're legitimately psychotic. You lie on a daily basis, you make up a narrative on your own and go off on people about whatever it is you made up. Even if it stands in direct contrast to evidence of things that have been said RIGHT HERE. You complain about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. You play the "hit and run" game that you claim so many others play. You say outrageous things. You spread lies and rumors about people you don't know just for your own pleasure. You try to play the victim and get people to feel sorry for you after doing all of this. You wish ill will towards people all of the time, especially me. You are the scum of the Earth Watchdog.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-13-14 9:32 PM

No Grant, not going to work. I used to try and explain out my comments to you and pacify your ignorant game and I know nothing I say or write won't make a difference to you anyway. I am going to save myself the headache of your assaults and the way you get out of answering any direct questions I return to you. Now let me finish your punch line for you since everybody anxiously awaits your pathetic assault and save everybody some time:

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EATTHERICH

Mar-13-14 4:48 PM

maybe a cronie needs a job

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ts1227

Mar-13-14 1:10 PM

She does have a right to an opinion, James. However, if one chooses to be very vocal and also take off the wall stances, people have the right to call that person out as well.

Part of dealing it out is being able to have it dished back at you.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-13-14 11:25 AM

Still waiting for an example Watchdog.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-13-14 1:19 AM

"This is nothing more than the Cahill's not willing to or unable to pay to get their building up to state code, so they want the city to sign off. That way if someone would die in a fire in their building, and it's discovered that it wasn't up to state code and they get sued, they can say welllll, the city signed off on it. They want the city to be their liability haven."

Wow Grant. I am not happy with Cahill's attitude on some matters he harps on but that is a harsh allegation. That is close to slander. You might regret that remark. Can you prove any of that? Better come up with something now. You crossed a line. And you complain about watchdog because she gripes at council? wow, I think you might want to think about your narrative.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-13-14 12:29 AM

I'm interested in hearing if she has anything else to offer. Why do you always focus on her comments. Better yet why have you made this about her comments and her comments only? She has a right to her opinions like we all do. What is up with you. Can't just hold a conversation and discuss these issues? Mingus I get tired of sorting through these comments of trashing trying to get other folks opinions and ideas. Lighten up. If you don't like her reasoning offer up another view. It can't be this darn difficult.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesAustin

Mar-13-14 12:24 AM

"Truth is, at least 90% of the time you're just shooting off because you like to complain, you don't actually know what you're talking about."

Mingus maybe it is because you just want to disagree with her. I see this all the time with you. I watched the two of you go after Nestic, do you remember that? I think your problem is, you treat her badly when you don't agree with her. I have seen you on other stories that you never say a word to her. Why don't you lighten up, be polite and ask her nice or explain why you may not understand a part of her comment. Do you have to make a badgering game?

After reading your comment and then reading what watchdog wrote and I will quote her.

"It is this councils job to LEGISLATE and oversee City operations, not CONTROL city operations and RUN the city. OVERSEE operations. NOT CONTROL."

Am I to understand you want the Council to control you more? I think I understand what watchdog is getting at with that remark.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-14 8:29 PM

Now dance and change the narrative.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-14 8:25 PM

This is nothing more than the Cahill's not willing to or unable to pay to get their building up to state code, so they want the city to sign off. That way if someone would die in a fire in their building, and it's discovered that it wasn't up to state code and they get sued, they can say welllll, the city signed off on it. They want the city to be their liability haven.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-14 8:05 PM

He isn't the first one to come through here and he won't be the last.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-14 8:04 PM

It's funny that you would support the Cahill's on this, you know why? Because there are laws, rules, and you're always screaming about people following them. The Cahill's don't want to follow the rules, they don't want to get state building permits. They've proved that. Why do you think they want a city building department Watchdog? My guess is they think, based on experience, that it's easier to control. Why do you think Akron got rid of theirs and vacated the responsibility to the county? Building in this town is an easy process, the city government isn't hampering development. Why would they? More revenue means they could appropriate money to appease the things you're constantly complaining about. Truth is, at least 90% of the time you're just shooting off because you like to complain, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Cahill is a snake oil salesman, you want to hamper development in the city, follow him.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Mar-12-14 6:22 PM

Provide an example of how city council has worked against growth and hindered development.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Mar-12-14 5:48 PM

Councilwoman with all due respect. Council is the problem. It's not the money. Enforcement is the prevention.

The Cahill's are right in this matter.

This council abuses their authority. This council has created this Government tangled maze. This council works against growth. This council has made this about CONTROL and not problem solving. This council has hindered this city in progress and growth.

It is this councils job to LEGISLATE and oversee City operations, not CONTROL city operations and RUN the city. OVERSEE operations. NOT CONTROL.

I've said it before. I don't know why we have a Mayor or heads of departments. This council has deadlocked this city.

Council is the PROBLEM.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Justin84

Mar-12-14 10:46 AM

Cyndi, would the city not be able to budget a part time inspector? I dont think they need one full time. Or perhaps dual hat a person already on staff. Im confused as to where all of the cities money goes honestly. It seems to me that the city deteriorates as years go by and nothing ever gets done. Do other neighboring cities really charge a considerably higher tax to their residents?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CyndiBaronzziDickey

Mar-12-14 6:32 AM

That is correct, Oakleaves. They admit that. And that is why they want the language changed to reflect what they really do, which is give out zoning permits. The question, in light of the problems with buildings in Salem, is whether or not inspections need to be done. Avoiding problems like the Tanfastic building would be cheaper than paying to fix them when they endanger the public. The problem is that prevention isn't cheap either. From where does the money come?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oakleaves

Mar-12-14 2:53 AM

Neither of the two so called inspectors are even qualified to inspect houses now. Neither has any background in any kind of construction.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web