We must ask "WHY?"

We must ask "WHY?"



Sunday, September 25, 2011

The Hotel Sterling

Okay, I have one important question to ask. WHO THE @#$%&^ DO THE CITYVEST ASSHATS THINK THEY ARE?

In the Times Leader article, "Battle over razing Hotel Sterling brews", They DEMAND that the city tear down the Sterling?!!!

“The Hotel Sterling needs to be razed and it needs to be razed immediately. Waiting thirty days for CityVest to do something which all parties know CityVest cannot do is imprudent and, quite frankly, constitutes a needless threat to public safety,”
Translation, We stole all we could from the $6 million LOAN, and you can kiss our asses if you think we're gonna pay to do it.

Am I wrong in thinking that Cityvest SHOULD have made the building stable before wasting our taxes on anything else?

I was at the Sterling when they condemned it way back when. Honestly, I've been VERY sceptical that it could have been saved, even without the flood.

The questions that really need to be asked are not being asked.
When are we going to get our $6 million back?
Why was the Sterling left to rot for a decade?
Why would the city be responsible for a privately owned building?

If the City has to tear it down, they should be able to put a lien on all the private holdings of the owners (or whatever the big wigs are called) of Cityvest, to recoup the loan and costs of demolition.

Dan Emplit WBFD


  1. This happens all the time. A business shuts down, claims bankruptcy, changes their name and WA LA Ask for money under the new name & continue to rip the tax payers off all over again

  2. Bravo Dan.
    You ask questions that this administration should have addressed BEFORE the 6 Mil was even given out.
    A definitive plan for the demolition/salvaging should have been presented. A cost analysis for the project should have been presented. All expenditures should have been documented. NO FUNDS would have been diverted if all funds had to be accounted for. How many "engineers" does it take to reach the same conclusion? Or were the principals looking for a different answer??
    And I agree, to having the city tear it down, and slap a lien on ALL City Vest assets until it is paid back with interest.

  3. Yes CityVest should be held responsible for demolition costs...as far as the city tearing it down and slapping a lien against them...what contractor would do the work when the city can't cover the cost? Maybe the answer...if the building is ready to collapse like they say... the city could just get DPW to move a stone or two and let it fall. Then they can take all the time they need to clean it up like the Murray Complex @ Pennslyvania Av. Remove the loose facial fascade as necessary and that building will still be standing for many administrations to deal with