City “went light on delinquent landlord”
Excellent Globe and Mail piece (Frédérik-Xavier Duhamel is doing good work about Montreal for them) examines how the city dropped fire safety charges against the landlord in the Place d’Youville fire, ten years before the building went up in flames.
The explanation here is both clear and murky. Why did the city fire service “stop investigating infractions involving evacuation routes and alarm systems on the grounds that bylaw officers could not provide sufficient evidence to enforce safety rules”? How could fire prevention be handwaved in such a blasé manner in a city filled with tindery older buildings?
The piece also looks briefly at court cases still to come, concerning that fire on Place d’Youville. The landlord is clearly at fault, but so is the city.
Ian 07:32 on 2023-08-16 Permalink
Call me cynical, but I suspect th answer is probably in a plain brown envelope… or at least was.
Given the example of Sue Montgomery we know how the non-elected city functionaries that actually award contracts work, and how nervous city administration is about crossing them.
dwgs 08:49 on 2023-08-16 Permalink
Ian said exactly what I was thinking.
Meezly 12:32 on 2023-08-16 Permalink
I’d call myself cynical and that was also my first thought. It’s not merely neglect and incompetence. Why does the article merely hint at it and not say it out loud? B-r-i-b-e-r-y spells corruption! Is it because the investigation is still ongoing and good journalism dictates to not jump to conclusions until there’s solid evidence?