Re: Derelict Property 1511 Hastings St.
City Manager Puffalt and Council,
It’s always intrigued me to see our councillors and administration turn to other comparable sized cities to justify their pay increases. Shouldn’t it be based on performance and actually providing good governance for its citizens?
But I’m rambling and I continue to have more questions than answers for these underperforming city officials. My disappointment and frustration is taking it’s toll.
Mr. Puffalt, to quote your words, “People’s individual ‘property rights’ are very important and the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw requires that when the City issues orders it must in essence provide at least 15 days notice as the Property Owner has the right to appeal any order to Council within that time period.” We are also property owners.
Mr. Puffalt, your words September 19 2018 I [must have] misunderstood that [you said] the property owner was obtaining a full demolition permit. Rod indicated the trees being removed along the fence was also possible.
If this is the result going forward, my wife and I can’t thank all of you enough. (My words Sept. 2018)
From: Dawn Luhning <luhningd@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:20:09 PM
To: Carter Currie
Subject: Re: Derelict Property 1511 Hastings St.
Hi Carter,
I’m happy that Mr. Puffalt has jumped on this after I forwarded it all to him at the beginning of the week. I hope that the building comes down this month and this can be resolved for you and your family. I’ve asked Mr. Puffalt to keep me posted but please feel free to email me also with progress.
Have a good day!
Dawn
Then City Manager Jim Puffalt changed his story from demolition to he misspoke, after speaking to Chief Montgomery extensively on a 10 minute tour of the interior of the house. No explanation provided. The smell and decay didn’t support demolition?
Fast forward to July 2, 2020 and the house at 1511 Hastings St. continues to decay and remains uninhabitable and absent of any continued work or repairs.
Let me repeat, Mr. Puffalt, isn’t Montgomery the one who said a “couple of insurance companies challenged, 'there is nothing in our bylaws', to charge fees, so he had council change the bylaw, so a contractor could collect fees?
So, is he saying there could be something wrong with city bylaws that prevents the city dealing with this house?
On, Wednesday March 11, 2020, my wife noticed a sheet of plywood attached to our fence, bordering the contentious property.
Mr. Puffalt, you speak about the importance of property rights, for all citizens. Your city crew or contractor attached (a sheet of the same plywood to the house and our fence) where the sheet of OSB laying on the ground had been attached to cover the open patio door. Care to explain?
So Mr. Puffalt, you and Montgomery seem to have two different mindsets concerning property rights, one for Dr. James and one for us, yet you are required to follow city bylaws.
Again a remainder in dealing with these Derelict Decaying Properties:
City of North Battleford 90 days... (Fact, you were city manager.)
City of Regina 90 days...
In the end, what council decides is what is done, and council is accountable to the public. Ultimately, Puffalt works for the citizens of the city. (Your words)
But, not in the city of Moose Jaw, could this be why you were fired after 12 years in Estevan?
As far as the plywood is concerned, leave it; maybe Montgomery can have it removed when he gets the trees cut down that are damaging our fence.
The Bylaw Department may need to take direct action however, if there is an immediate health or safety concern. (City web page)
Dawn, have you wondered why your “email,” became public yet the Express has to pay $25,600.99 for the Carpere file?
-- Carter Currie
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
