3 ms·

It seems to me that this one code enforcer is wasting the city's money by spending his time writing citations that aren't based on a complaint. He seems to have

• vba616 4y ago
  "When Tad Dominiak, the inspector assigned to our case, called me back, the conversation did not go well. Dominiak told me every plant on the slope longer than 12 inches would need to be removed. He threatened me with a fine of $50 per day, per weed, if we didn’t comply. When I told Dominiak that removing all of the vegetation would cause massive erosion, he suggested terracing. We had looked into that, I told him, and it would cost tens of thousands of dollars. He responded, “Your cost of compliance is not my problem.” " I wonder why they can't just buy, borrow or rent a weed whacker. I am missing some context for spending $30,000 being a serious option, and I wonder if the inspector didn't understand either. (Further on it says they paid someone $5000 to remove the vegetation... And another $4,000: "I’ve since attempted to stop the erosion by anchoring cement blocks into the slope and turning them into beds with trees and decorative plants. Hauling cement blocks and 35-pound bags of mulch up a steep slope is a laborious process, and I have no idea if it will work. But while it’s still been expensive — about $4,000 so far" And a tree that costs thousands to remove: "By forcing us to fix a dubious problem, the city had created a genuine safety hazard. Taking down the tree will cost another $4,000 to $6,000.")