Updates
Hanging on for Dear Life
Update: August 12, 2010
Can you see the Stokes-Gaeta Demolition worker on the right holding on to beams above his head for dear life? Why is he doing this? Because Stokes cannibalized legitimate, safe scaffolding done by a professional scaffolding firm to build its own illegal spit-and-baling-wire scaffolding so its workers could remove roof beams from 734 West End Avenue. On 8-11-2010 the scaffolding was so rickety that the men started to lose their balance and had to grab the overhead beams to avoid a fall. The men's safety harnesses weren't hooked up. Indeed, until OSHA received complaints regarding life-threatening violations of the most basic worker safety laws, the men (no, there's never been a woman working there) had no safety equipment at all. OSHA even had to force Stokes to put up a public notice telling everyone to wear a helmet. The NYC Buildings Dept. was notified of this and other life-threatening violations and ... did nothing. Of course! Okay. It was hot. The inspectors were tired. So they never showed up. Zzzzzzzzz.
The developer and general contractor, Sackman Enterprises, on its own and through its shell corporation, 732-734 West End Avenue, LLC, filed false papers with Buildings - twice - "documenting" non-existant mandatory general liability insurance. Although Buildings was served with copies of the last insurer's letters stating outright that it does not cover Sackman Enterprises, nor any of the companies it controls, for damage it and its subcontractors might cause to the adjacent buildings and their tenants, Buildings did nothing to revoke the permits it granted for work at this site. Filing fraudulent documents with a NYS government agency is a felony ... everywhere except in the NYC Buildings Dept.'s domain. There ... it's practically s.o.p. To make sure the crime was covered up, a Buildings flack actually emailed, writing that there was no requirement that the general contractor have insurance to cover potential damage to adjacent buildings. A past Buildings official heard about this and advised filing criminal charges, and not just against the developer, either.
As for the damage ... Sackman has been forced to do a major repair job on The Salvation Army's Williams Residence - the building to the south of Sackman's site - because of damage one of its subcontractors, working with no permits at all, did to its walls. The repairs have been done so negligently that Stop Work Orders are issued (and disappear) with great regularity. Neither Sackman nor its subcontractors can manage to follow their own engineer's and architect's plans. Too hard and too expensive! The common party wall between 734 and 736 West End Avenue, the building to the north, was damaged: 736 now has crack monitors installed to document the wall's shifting and a motion sensor to warn tenants when to evacuate.
Update: November 10, 2009
BUILDINGS TO TENANTS: SET UP A BUCKET BRIGADE.
OR, DEUTSCHE BANK REDUX?
On October 13, 2009, the Buildings Department (DOB) issued a Stop Work Order to Sackman Enterprises (SE) because the sprinklers in the townhouses it is demolishing, 732-734 West End Avenue, had been disconnected. SE was to get a Fire Department variance before work could be resumed. On October 28, the “STOP WORK ORDER [was] FULLY RESCINDED. ... VIOLATING CONDITIONS COMPLIED WITH. OK TO RESCIND AS PER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BEST.” The only problem is, of course, that the sprinklers had not been reconnected and the Fire Department hadn’t granted a variance from this important safety requirement. Disconnected sprinklers were the reason two brave firefighters died in the Deutsche Bank fire. We’re pleased that the FDNY didn’t roll over for SE. DOB did.
It would appear that DOB has placed responsibility for putting out a fire at the demolition site on the tenants of the adjacent buildings: 736 West End Avenue, which has many elderly and disabled residents who can’t quickly and safely self-evacuate in case of a fire, and 720 West End Avenue, The Williams Residence, which houses about 300 retired persons.
This is a palpably dangerous situation inasmuch as OSHA cited SE’s contractor earlier this year for allowing employees to smoke on the townhouses’ roofs during illegal asbestos removal work. Once burned, twice ... shy?
DOB apparently thinks tenants at 736 and 720 should set up their own Bucket Brigade in case of fire. We’re awaiting word from DOB as to whether it will supply the buckets or if we’ll have to supply our own. We think we’re supposed to organize our older tenants to pour water from our windows onto a townhouse fire. See below.
Question of the day: DOB ducked the bullet when a criminal law firm which Mayor Bloomberg had paid millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money convinced Manhattan District Attorney Morgenthau to not indict it for criminal negligence due to its conduct which resulted in the Deutche Bank fire deaths.
Does DOB think that a new District Attorney will be less likely to indict if someone is harmed due to a fire at SE’s townhouses here?
We’ve checked. The liability insurance policies SE and its contractor claims are in effect and covering this job ... aren’t. In fact, this job is virtually uninsurable. If the insurance industry knows that the lives and property of adjacent buildings’ residents are being seriously endangered to save SE the money it would take to do the job safely, why is DOB so willing to allow the substandard work to go on?
But then, why did DOB allow SE to leave tenants in its building at 2nd Avenue and 92rd Street in danger for over two years after inspectors found that the building was tilting? Why wasn’t SE required to make repairs to the building during that time. Then DOB issued an emergency evacuation order forcing them out on the street! They’re lucky they’re alive, no thanks to DOB. We, on the other hand, are supposed to have ... a Bucket Brigade to protect us.
Update: October 14, 2009
SACKMAN SACKS 2ND AVENUE - WILL WE BE NEXT?
The Oct. 9 Times Real Estate section had an interesting
piece re two of Sackman Enterprises' victims - folks who had rented an
apartment at a SE building on 2nd Avenue and 92nd Street this
past summer, only to be told right before they were to move in that the
building had been evacuated "because of the danger of collapse if underground
blasting on the Second Avenue subway line proceeded as planned. (According to
the Department of Buildings, pre-existing structural problems were largely
responsible.)"
Examining the Buildings Dept. (DOB) web pages for this
building, it turns out that a serious citation had been issued in 2007 because the building was obviously tilting.
DOB records show no subsequent applications for permits to repair the
structure. DOB, of course, did nothing
to force repairs and protect the rental tenants. Sackman Enterprises defaulted on the hearings
which should have been held to determine appropriate fines and force compliance
with building safety laws. The Second
Avenue subway project was well underway there by that time.
Fast forward two years and ... Sackman was still renting out
apartments in the building while having done no substantive repairs at
all. Some observant person brought to
DOB's attention the fact that the building was tilting even more and that it
was likely to collapse due to continued subway construction - and an emergency
vacate order was issued, forcing rental tenants out into the street. The Red Cross did offer assistance to the victims.
Currently, the only thing being done there, according to DOB
records, is construction of a fence - in case the building collapses - handled
by the NYC Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development. With such cavalier regard for the safety of
Sackman rental tenants just across town, is there any wonder why tenants at 736
West End Avenue are frightened because of the possibility of their building's
collapse when Sackman takes down the adjacent townhouses?
In February 2009 DOB issued a Partial Stop Work Order for
illegal scaffolding and demolition work, while OSHA cited Sackman's unlicensed
contractor for life-threatening conditions for workers, as the work being done
without benefit of any permit at all. More
recently, OSHA cited Sackman's current demolition contractor, Stokes/Gaeta
Demolition, for dangerous asbestos safety violations at 732-734 West End Avenue. There is currently a full Stop Work Order on
the project because of dangerous demolition conditions. Sackman has been directed to secure a
sprinkler waiver from the Fire Department and repair or replace damaged safety
netting. Meanwhile, the demolition permit has been shifted from Stokes
Demolition to Gaeta Demolition and then back to Stokes Demolition again because
the company insuring the demo work ended the Gaeta policy. Of course, DOB's web site shows that Stokes
transferred its license to Gaeta Demolition back in 2005, but since Stokes'
name was needed to get mandatory insurance coverage, Stokes Demolition has miraculously
come back to life. "Waking the Dead" or
mobbed-up developer and subcontractors?
Or both?
Although Sackman Enterprises, the owner, developer and
general contractor for this project, and its sucontractors, have been cited for
life-threatening violations on numerous occasions, DOB still allows Sackman and
its subcontractors to self-certify their own building permits.
Two weeks ago, Stokes/Gaeta amended the demolition
permit. The work being done on 734 West
End Avenue is no longer a "site safety" project, although damage to the common
party wall between 734 and 736 West End Avenue endangers the structural
stability of 736. No doubt Sackman
is using the same site safety "engineers" on this project as he used for the 2nd Avenue building, which is why no repairs were made for two years and the
building had to be evacuated in June on an emergency basis. We're thankful the Red Cross could offer
Sackman's victims some assistance.
Sackman Enterprises' DOB license information states that
"Chubb Custom" is its liability insurer.
That's not what Chubb says. We
leave it to Chubb and the insurance industry's anti-fraud professionals to deal
with that scam: it's inconceivable at
this point that DOB would.
At a recent community pacification meeting of Community
Board 7's Construction Taskforce, Sackman's representatives told those present
that 736 was a "young building," and thus its tenants could be counted on to
safely self-evacuate in an emergency. If
you believe that, well ... Sackman Enterprises has a bridge it would love to
sell you, just down the road apiece. We'll
be in touch with the Red Cross in the near future to see what help they'll be
able to give if and when an emergency evacuation at 736 West End Avenue is
required. Since the NYC government isn't
protecting us, and didn't protect Sackman's tenant-victims on Second Avenue,
we've got to do it all ourselves.
One of our tenants looked up the DOB violations on Sackman's
Manhattan rental buildings. Let's just
say there are a lot of them. Probably a
whole hard drive full. If anyone ever
added up the fines Sackman Enterprises should have paid, but hasn't, most of
NYC's budget deficit would disappear.
Let's have some real Buildings law enforcement against Sackman
Enterprises ... as a prudent Bloomberg deficit-reduction measure.
Update - September 5,2009
Happy Labor Day. Not!
OSHA CITES SACKMAN'S
CONTRACTOR FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL VIOLATIONS
OSHA Inspection No.
313138950, Issued 8/27/09
OSHA just fined the Lilich Corporation, Sackman Enterprises' contractor, $4,000 for numerous "serious" violations of laws during its June '09 asbestos removal work at 732-734 West End Ave. The worst violations include:
1. "Sampling records provided by the employer reveal sampling done for a period of 4 hours and were not representative of the 8 hour period of the employees' work shift exposure."
This means that the assurances
we've been given are empty. There
may be significant amounts of asbestos in the dust covering our windows. There may be significant amounts of asbestos
in the dust which blew into apartments through open windows. Windows which were left open because none of
the required hazmat removal warning signs were in place.
2. Asbestos handlers "removed ACM (Asbestos
Containing Material) ... by using hand tools (Class II work). Wet methods were not used to remove roofing
materials that were rendered not intact during removal."
Translation: The roof should have been constantly wet down
so that asbestos-bearing dust wasn't freed up ... to fly all over our
windows. We've already learned that most
of the windows in 736 and 720 which should have been covered before the work
began weren't. We have pictures to prove
it. Water isn't that expensive. What was the problem?
3. "The employer did not ensure employees
working in a hazardous environment wear respirators by implementing procedures
for proper use of respirators." And "Asbestos handlers performed abatement of
ACM without respiratory protection."
Nobody offered folks in adjacent
buildings respirators, either ... but OSHA only protects workers. Nearby residents' illegal exposure to
asbestos seems to be, in the view of the NYC government, mere collateral
damage. Road kill on the path to a real
estate developer's illicit profits. It
seems like those profits, rather than nearby residents' safety, are what the
NYC govt., and some of our local pols, have been working to protect.
Thanks, Mayor Mike. But ... are you feeling our pain?
Some real thanks should go to OSHA,
which has done its job, unlike our City govt. agencies. This is the second time OSHA has cited
Sackman contractors for "serious" violations of worker safety laws at the
townhouses. We assume the next time will
be after the Stop Work Order is disappeared from the Buildings web site and
Sackman starts dangerous demolition activities ... again.
4. "The employer did not ensure employees working in a hazardous environment abstain from smoking cigarettes in the regulated area."
Remember the Deutsche Bank
fire? Remember the law passed strictly
prohibiting smoking at demolition projects after two brave firemen died in that
fire? We do. Some contractors and developers don't. Or don't care.
5. "The employer did not ensure that asbestos
waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment, and contaminated clothing
consigned for disposal were collected and disposed of in sealed, labeled,
impermeable bags or other closed, labeled, impermeable containers ... . The ACM debris was disposed of in black
plastic bags that were unlabeled."
Sackman Enterprises has said that
after it demolishes the townhouses, it will use debris from the demolition to
fill the hole in the ground, and leave the site that way for two years until it
begins construction of a sliver luxury condo building. Is the unlabeled Asbestos Containing Material
going to be used to fill in the hole? Using
toxic debris for landfill is cheaper than going through exacting steps required
for legal hazmat disposal. Are residents
of both adjacent buildings, and the 1,000 children of PS 75 - directly across the
street - going to be exposed to asbestos-contaminated debris for two whole
years? Will we be living next to a
poisonous toxic dump? Stay tuned.
ENGINEERING A COLLAPSE?
Below is a picture of the
townhouses' roofs taken on September 2, 2009. 
Openings to the roofs have been left
wide open. Why? Contractor forgetfulness? Negligence?
Could be, but we're told that it would be cheaper to let rain flood the
townhouses, intentionally causing structural deterioration, than it is to
bother with all those pesky, expensive demolition requirements ... like placing
motion sensors in the adjacent buildings. The Buildings Department, a/k/a Sackman
Enterprises' best friend, might then just order Sackman to do an "emergency"
demolition, allegedly for the safety of the surrounding buildings, without
requiring that those bothersome, expensive safety precautions be put in
place. Motion sensors, anyone?
Endangering us by pretending to
protect us. How drole.
Update - August 24, 2009
Where's Waldo?
1. On August 7, 2009
the NYC Buildings Dept. (DOB) posted a "Stop Work Order" on its Building
Information System (BIS) for 732 and 734 West End Avenue. Stop Work Orders are supposed to be
posted publicly on the buildings or work sites which are being closed
down. No Stop Work Order was ever
posted on 732 or 734 West End Avenue.
Where's
the Stop Work Order that's supposed to be posted conspicuously on these townhouses? And why was it never posted by DOB in
the first place?
2. The underlying web
entry for the Stop Work Order says it's "resolved." It was posted as resolved on August 7, the day it was
allegedly issued. The violation is
that motion sensors were supposed to be installed in the adjacent buildings - 736
and 720 West End Avenue - when demolition began. These were required because of the extreme danger that
demolition might destabilize the adjacent buildings. Sackman Enterprises has been doing demolition there since
February 2009.
There
are no motion sensors installed in 736 and 720 West End Avenue. Why is the Stop Work Order marked
resolved?
3. A "Severity - CLASS
1" violation notice, to be handled by the Environmental Control Board, dated
May 14, 2009, recently appeared on the BIS web page for 734 West End Avenue, months
after it was supposedly issued.
The violation - life threatening - is that the developer, Sackman
Enterprises, had all the banisters removed from the internal stairways in the
townhouse, making it unreasonably dangerous for workers inside who had to use
these stairs. The hearing on this
has been adjourned to November 2009.
DOB inspectors have been seen at the townhouses on many occasions since
then, including on days when workers were there, and should have issued
immediate Stop Work Orders because this hazardous condition still exists.
Where
are those Stop Work Orders? If they'd been posted, perhaps Sackman Enterprises wouldn't
have been able to sneak men into the townhouses episodically since the asbestos
job was finished ... and then chain-and-padlock them in while they worked ...
because the workers would have been alerted to the fact that nobody should have
been in there in the first place because it was so extremely dangerous.
4. Sackman Enterprises
should have filed a "this is an asbestos job" or "this is not an asbestos job"
permit with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). But didn't. DEP inspectors visited the
site when Sackman Enterprises had workers doing asbestos removal work on the
roofs and inside the townhouses.
Where's
the "asbestos job" permit? Why
didn't DEP close the hazmat removal project down when its inspectors visited
the site, and chatted with 736's tenants - even visiting the apartment of one -
while this illegal project was underway?
And where are the citations DEP told other governmental agencies
it had issued because of improper containment of the asbestos the workers
disturbed? We recently used the NYS Freedom of
Information Law to request copies of these files. But ... DEP replied that there weren't any.
Where's
the integrity of the New York City government? Two of
its agencies so far - Buildings and Environmental Protection - have allowed
Sackman Enterprises to work in flagrant violation of law, endangering the lives
and safety of 100 residents of 736 West End Avenue and 300 seniors at 720 West
End Avenue?
Where's
... Waldo?
August 11, 2009
1. The NYC Buildings Dept. has issued a "Stop Work Order" to Sackman Enterprises at the townhouses next door, 732-734 West End Avenue.
2. Recently, the West End Preservation Society (WEPS) sent out minutes of its July 23 meerting which contained a significant error. Nobody from 736 West End Avenue said that we felt that Sackman's work at 732-734 "had gone too far and that the buildings were doomed." We have the townhouses under surveillance and know what's been done inside. There is no reason why Sackman can't finish gutting the townhouses; renovate them for sale as luxury condos, and perhaps build a small set back penthouse surrounded by a terrace on the roofs. He could do this right now. Given the current Manhattan real estate market, he'd probably make more money than if he follows his announced plan to demolish the townhouses; let the site stand vacant for two years, and then build a luxury sliver condominium when the market improves.
3. Sackman has been sneaking two or three workers into the townhouses on random mornings. After they are ushered inside, the fence enclosing the entire facade is chained up and padlocked closed again. We assume this is done so that when Buildings Dept. inspectors show up they can report that no work is being done at the premises - and leave. If there is a fire, or the common party wall with 736 is further undermined and collapses, the likelihood that these men will be able to get out safely is close to nil. How would the Fire Dept. know they were there? Remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? We're on the case, with videocams and digital cameras positioned in surrounding buildings. If and when we film this lock up, we'll upload the video to our YouTube page, and link it to our CollapseCam, so the whole world can see how illegal Hispanic workers' lives are being appallingly endangered by an unscrupulous real estate developer.
The last time Sackman had a firm doing illegal scaffolding and demolition next door, OSHA cited the contractor for "serious" worker safety violations and fined its contractor, Escobar Construction and Renovation, $5,500. Since OSHA's average fine when a worker's death is involved is $5,000, you can imagine the danger the workers there were in. The NYC Environmental Control Board also fined Sackman Enterprises $6,000 for working without a permit. Although Buildings' web site reports that Sackman paid the $6,000 ECB fine, we have our doubts. Sackman didn't pay the fine ECB previously levied for illegal and extremely dangerous facade work. We understand that Sackman is still using Escobar at other work sites around The City and hope that those workers aren't exposed to life-threatening situations; have now received safety training, and also have the required protective gear. The penalty for being an illegal alien construction worker shouldn't be death. Sackman Enterprises shouldn't be allowed to impose it.
4. We've been consulting with experts re Sackman's having exposed us to asbestos when improper hazmat removal work was done on the townhouses' roofs this past June. As soon as we have final advice, all tenants of 736 and our friends at The Williams Residence will be informed. It appears that we'll need to retain counsel to sue to force those responsible to pay for the medical monitoring we'll most likely need for the rest of our lives.
5. As always, our criminal lawyer tenant reminds us that when they convicted NJ Mayor Sharpe James and his girlfriend for the corrupt govt. land sale they engineered, the third person ensnared was a local govt. clerk. She was convicted for being part of the scheme although she didn't profit personally at all.
6. We're hearing rumors - again - that something inappropriate is being planned re retired Transit Authority Generating Station 14, up the block from us at 264 W. 96 Street. We're now told that the TA site isn't polluted and doesn't need a brownfields cleanup. The environmental study we have says that the site is polluted with toxic metals and other poisonous materials and certainly will require a cleanup if anything is to be built there at all. As with the illegal asbestos work at 732-734, we'll stay on the case. If it looks like something irregular is being done to facilitate a real estate deal up there, we'll be in court - and at prosecutors' offices - faster than you can say "lead, mercury and volatile toxic chemicals."
June 23, 2009
Buildings Dept. Protects Developer: OSHA Protects Workers
Nobody Protects Tenants
Sackman Enterprises has begun removal of hazardous materials from the roofs of the townhouses. The workers are wearing hazmat coveralls, head covers, gloves and gas masks as protection.
What protection has the corrupt NYC Buildings Dept. required for tenants in the adjacent buildings? None! Seniors in The Williams Residence, the building on the other side of the townhouses from 736 report vomiting, rashes and other alarming symptoms from the hazmat work being done.
Worker Removing Hazardous Materials From
732-734 West End Avenue Roofs
What else hasn't the Buildings Dept. done to protect tenants of the adjacent buildings? A "site protec-tion plan" was required due to the serious danger of structural damage to 736 and 720. The "site pro-tection plan" that DOB approved requires that motion sensors be installed in 736 and 720 to warn in case the walls start collapsing. Demolition has started. Where are the motion sensors? We don't know, but we do know that they are not in 736 and 720 WEA. Oops! Buildings forgot. And we know that the site protection plan's architectural plans do not accurately describe these buildings. In fact, this "plan" lacks the required signature and seal of the engineer or architect who prepared it. No creden-tialled professional will take responsibility for its contents. Nobody wants to risk being sued for concoct-ing it.
We and representatives of The Williams Residents attended a June 12, 2009, Community Board 7 Construction Taskforce meeting which was supposed to work out ways to protect tenants during demo-lition. Sackman Enterprises' attorney, Ed Wallace, Esq., of Traurig Greenberg, and Sackman's official, Joe Helfinger, made firm promises that work would not start until after the school year at PS 75, across the street, ended. Ha! Sackman had workers doing illegal work inside the townhouses 36 hours later. Sackman's henchmen also promised CB7 and the pols reps. who attended that the required signs, with name of contractors and emergency contact information, would be put up at the site the following Mon-day morning. Ha, again! The signs were put up the following Thursday, but only after we called in Buildings complaints. Maybe the corrupt Buildings Dept. should pay us for enforcing the law, since it refuses to do so.
Our noise advisor, a nationally-recognized expert, states that the ferocious noise Sackman's workers have been making has endangered the safety and health of folks in both nearby buildings and also the children at PS 75. Decibel measurements show readings well above what is legal. The NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection is now on that case, meaning that perhaps we'll get some effective protection. Noise can kill, you know. Environmental Protection does. Buildings ... doesn't.
In the meantime, tenants at 736 report hearing cracking noises in their walls and also that some pre-existing cracks appear to have grown since demolition began. Buildings has been asked to inspect. There has been no response to that request. No surprise there. Tenants in the Brooklyn building which collapsed this past weekend complained for weeks that their building was shaking before it went down. Buildings reported that it had been "working with" the developer on the structure's flaws. Just like Buildings is "working" with Sackman Enterprises. We wonder what this "working with" costs.
Nobody was killed in the Brooklyn collapse because tenants were able to evacuate themselves ... quickly. Does anyone seriously think that the older, frail tenants in 736 and the 300+ retired folks in Williams, 20% of whom are 90 years of age or older, and many of whom are bedridden or wheel chair-dependant, can evacuate themselves from a high rise apartment building in 2 or 3 minutes? Does the Buildings Dept. care? It would appear not.
A petition signed by hundreds of residents of the adjacent building, accompanied by substantial docu-mentation, has been filed with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York asking for a federal investigation - and prosecution - of responsible Buildings Dept. officials, inspectors, and the people from whom they are obviously taking orders ... and perhaps cash. We can only hope that an honest NYC Department of Environmental Protection and a courageous federal prosecutor will be able to do what Buildings should have, i.e., make sure that nobody dies, or loses a home, because of a ra-pacious developer with very deep pockets.
The Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York is Lev Dassin, Esq. Know him? Have friends who work in his office? Perhaps you know someone who used to work there? If your answer is "yes" to any of these queries, we'd be most appreciative if you'd pick up the phone; give your contacts, or colleagues, a call and ask the US Attorney to step in and protect us ... quickly.
We care about our lives. The Buildings Dept. ... doesn't.
Februrary 17th, 2009
On 2/17/09, after 736 Tenants asked the NYC Department of Investigations to have Buildings' inspectors investigated and prosecuted for filing false inspection reports, Buildings managed to post a notice on 732's BIS web page that PARTIAL STOP WORK ORDER EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY. This was for the illegal scaffolding complaint which OSHA had taken care of one week earlier. The partial stop work order was not posted on the doors of the townhouses. 736 Tenants doubts it was actually served on Sackman Enterprises or Escobar Construction. And the illegal demolition complaint was closed by Buildings because no demolition had been observed from the street and no inspector could gain access to the townhouses. Of course, the inspectors didn't post a LS-4 notice ordering the developer to make an appointment for an inspection, either. Buildings Dept. crane inspectors were prosecuted last year for - you know! - filing false inspection reports, but that was only after fatal crane accidents.
So, Thank You, OSHA, for protecting 4 construction workers in an extremely dangerous situation. And Bronx Cheers to the Buildings Dept. for refusing to stop the illegal demolition, thereby endangering the 400+ residents of the buildings adjacent to the Sackman townhouses.
What's next? Buildings is blind. But ... OSHA can see. We'll see if federal prosecutors can as well. WORK ORDER EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY
For more details, visit our Activity Page
February 11th, 2009
OSHA cites Escobar Construction for a grossly unsafe workplace for the rooftop scaffolding. Buildings Dept. inspectors allegedly cannot see the same scaffolding which is clear as day on the roof of 732. Later, Buildings is notified that 734's front door is open and workers are removing heavy demolition debris from the building, but fails to send an Inspector.
Escobar Construction, not licensed to do construction or rigging work in NYC, erects scaffolding on roof of 732 without permits or workers' safety equipment and illegally punches holes in back walls of 732 and 734; then sticks iron bars out of the new holes in the back of the townhouses' brick walls. Buildings Dept. Inspector fails to gain entrance although Escobar's workers are in the building working at that time, and violates Buildings' procedure by not posting LS-4 notices on front doors. These would order owner to make an inspection appointment.
We are a group of concerned tenants of 736 West End Ave who have formed to demand that the proper inspections be carried out and, if our concerns are founded, ensure the proper steps are taken to ensure our health, safety and tenants rights. In the case that we cannot accomplish this task, our secondary mandate is to set up an notification and evacuation network in case of structural or environmental hazard and hold the responsible parties responsible in civil and criminal court.
The Situation
732 and 734 West End Ave, two sandstone buildings occupying the lot adjacent to 736 West End Ave, have been puchased by real estate developer Alan Sackman. His stated intention is to demolish these small structures and build a condo, which will abut our building. 720 West End Ave "The Williams Residence", is a senior living facility owned by the Salvation Army with over 300 residents, two of which are over 100 years old. PS 11, a public elementary school, is located directly across the street.
While we acknowledge Alan Sackman's right to pursue this project within the limits of the law, we are very concerned:
- That the structural integrity of our building is in jeopardy; proper Buildings Department inspections have not been made; illegal and potentially dangerous internal demolition at 734 has already begun, and
- That toxic elements (including asbestos in the buildings and lead, mercury and PCBs under ground) will be released during demolition.