Not an engineering disaster, except in the sense that there was no engineering. Definitely a failure of local government, as the City had knowledge of the situation.
Agreed. Pretty amazing how many times this happens. You'd think the various inspectors/fire departments would 'get it' and descend on these places the day they hear about them. "Could not gain access" Cripes.
I suspect it's an incremental, procedural issue. Someone needs to make the enforcement agency aware of a problem. The enforcement agency visits, and requires corrective actions. But due to politics, you can't require these actions to happen instantly. The owner of the property might or might not perform the actions. Or maybe they half way perform the actions. So the agency revisits and if the actions aren't complete, possibly order the property locked up. And the owner or his tenants pry off the locks. The police are stretched thin, keeping the peace, with building violations as a minor priority.
If you would of said at any time, "...this building is going to kill 40 people.." of course actions would immediately happen. But the problem with codes and code enforcement is that several (bad) circumstances need to happen before they come into play. In this case, you had code violations, then a party, then a fire and then you need egress and fire protection.
We engineers and architects do a pretty good job of designing and avoiding 75% of potential tragedies. But diligent code enforcement is required to avoid another 20%. And maybe this can go up to 24%. But bad stuff happens. People bring their charcoal grill in their apartment to barbecue. You can't regulate stupid.
Add to that that certain very influential people have given a bad name to regulation (which codes and code enforcement are) and are attempting to strangle it at every turn. In my town, there were newspaper editorials a few years ago because some poor small business (keyword) couldn't expand (another keyword) without a building permit. So building permits are bad.
Yes, but it is mildly ironic that this happened in Oakland, CA, of all places where government power, regulation and control are the mantra of the community.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376
If the owner of the building only cares that someone is paying the rent, and the renters are happy to have a space to use, and the neighbors don't consider activities there to be any of their business, and there aren't windows to let anyone outside see what's going on, there might not ever be a complaint to the local building department, so they're none the wiser of the fire hazard that the tenants (who aren't knowledgable) have brought upon themselves.
I've tied to instill a 'situational awareness' component in my kids, with a fundamental one of crowd filled spaces and the inherent danger they can represent. It has included assessing fire escape(s). I hope I've been successful enough that they'd avoid these kinds of deathtraps.
Hard questions will confront not only the landowner and the sponsors of the party, but of the city regulators who did not take more affirmative action to halt the violations once and for all. City inspectors reportedly visited the site in response to complaints about its illegal residential use, but were unable to gain entry. City leaders must demand to know: Why not?
Read this .... City officials and fire marshals denied entrance to this obvious artsy firetrap full of fuel .....
Do the city inspectors have the authority to gain access by whatever means are necessary?
Follow-up question modified by inserting three words. Do the city inspectors have the authority to gain access to your house by whatever means are necessary?
And to forestall a related question: Do the city inspectors have the authority to gain access to a place of business by whatever means are necessary?
In my part of the world, doing that would require getting a warrant and that would require probable cause to be shown, but I would think that if a noisy party were in progress, it ought to be evident from outside, which ought to be probable cause, and the cops ought to have been able to get a warrant pretty quickly.
Can't prevent stupid ... if the building's occupants had been quiet about what they were doing, so as not to arouse suspicion from outside, they could easily have created this fire hazard without having drawn attention to it and the same thing could have happened - but if the news report is accurate that the city knew about the problem, someone didn't do their job.
I know someone who lived in an upstairs balcony in his workshop for several years.
I'm sure the building inspector visit and the noisy party were not in the same time frame.
It takes time to get a warrant for entry. Then you have to have the right authorities available to force entry. Unless the danger is imminent, I'm sure that the procedures are maddeningly slow.
This will be fixed for a while in Oakland. Then eventually things will go back to the status quo.
Why do you guys think a city needs a warrant? There's no constitutional protection for companies - commercial sites. Most cities must approve any and all businesses. They require Business Licenses that specify exactly what the business can be. If there's any suspicion that the business is not within the license they can show up to inspect without a warrant to confirm only the "licensed" business is occurring. If it's not, they can revoke the license and the business is toast. Same goes for people illegally living in a commercial space. Our city decided it wanted a quick injection of money so they decided the fire marshal had to inspect every last business and, oh yeah, charge everyone $70 for the inspection. No choice no warrant.
For years the owners and executives of large corporations have been trying, with some success ('Citizens United' is just one example), to get corporations treated as 'people' under the Constitution. I've read items where there's been talk of corporations gaining rights under the 4th (protections against unreasonable search and seizure) and the 5th (protection against self incrimination) Amendments. This would cover everything from stopping required disclosures for the SEC to revealing hazards to the EPA or unsafe working conditions to the Labor department, etc.
Because constitutional protection don't stop because you don't like companies. A refusal of entry does not stop the city from taking action, an inspection warrant is not difficult to obtain. Penalties are assessed each day a violation occurs, which is no small amount. A building owner who does not correct deficiencies can find themselves with a bill for the demolition of the building and no building. The city has more than enough tools to enforce the building code. It could be that the building was not in compliance, then brought into compliance and then in November which into non-compliance. Not enough information to tell if the city screwed up as well.
CA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 1822.50-1822.60
1822.50. An inspection warrant is an order, in writing, in the name
of the people, signed by a judge of a court of record, directed to a
state or local official, commanding him to conduct any inspection
required or authorized by state or local law or regulation relating
to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or
zoning.
You might think that the city would do something, but then why are these cites large declaring areas as sanctuaries for illegals and others. With these sorts of "anything goes" attitudes, why would be be surprised that they don't enforce zoning ordinances. Expect a lot more catastrophes. Now talk is the state of California may be declaring the whole state a sanctuary. None of this be a surprise any more.
OAKLAND, Calif. Authorities in Oakland, California, said on Tuesday they do not expect the death toll from a blaze that engulfed a converted warehouse during a dance party to rise above 36, but could not rule it out as they continued picking through debris.
