Article source for : City Immunity Calls Into Question Employing City Workers
This link, http://www.nbc24.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=97268, calls into question an important point for the inhabitants of this city (especially the “central city”). This mother finds her home damaged by city workers. They offer “scrap” to replace the damage. She refuses, expecting that she be “made whole”. Instead we have the manager of the department assuring us that they city has “immunity”, and this person will have to pay to repair the damage herself. Since this is so why would I try to get “nuisance” housing torn down if the city will probably damage my property in the course of the destruction of the “nuisance” property. The poll at NBC 24 showed 98:2 that the city should take responsibility for the damage and pay to return the house to its original condition. Luckily, in my neighborhood, the houses that have been torn down have treated with more care.
Do you think, given this damage, that we should consider putting pressure on the city to contract out these services where city employees don't seem competent to do the work, or the city is unwilling to reimburse citizens for damage they do?
