Note: Email subscribers may have to visit Nanaimo Info Blog to view video
Inconsistent Logic?
Building Too Dangerous To Sell
But OK To Use For Now!
Does this logic really make any sense?
Could It Be The Hazard Was Overstated In Order To Justify Building Staff A 'Shiny New Office'?
Mr. Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to debate the merits of the new building with you, mostly because its not really relevant any longer considering the New Annex is complete. I would like to clarify something though. CUPE has always been concerned with staff working in the old annex. In 2008 there was no viable alternative but to leave staff in that building, like you say applies to many other workers in town. Now that there is a viable alternative we are questioning the wisdom of leaving people in there and placing new staff in as well. If those other workers in town facing similiar threats could be placed in a safe building then I assume you would agree that they should be. Thank you for the work you do, we might not always agree but healthy debate is essential. Blaine Gurrie
Thank you for your comments. I suppose the thing I take issue with as much as anything, is the assessment used to determine when a building is considered 'safe'. Considering that the engineers report says that in a seismic event there is a high risk of failure without stating the seismic event, or the probability of such an event occurring it seems like less than complete information to decide to condemn a building and override the Canadian Building Code.
ReplyDeleteThe Canadian Building Code does not require a seismic upgrade unless there is a change of use. I can hardly imagine that the professionals responsible for that decision would willingly be putting people in harms way. There is no such thing as a 'safe' building, but if you ask an engineer if a building could suffer damage in a seismic event, the answer would have to be yes, to any building.
I am not convinced that the real threat has not been overstated.
Mr. Gurrie;
ReplyDeleteI failed to mention, that I do welcome healthy debate on all subjects, as I have never learned anything from people who agree with me. In fact, all they do, is reinforce my own bias and wrong thinking.
Thanks Jim, I don't disagree your statements regarding the building code requirements however we are not the organization deciding such things. We have taken the City at their word throughout the process and have not publically questioned the City's motivations in that regard. I can only say that we have been told that this building is particularly dangerous given the lack of rebar ect and the City's public statements to that effect are well know. In terms of the likelihood of a signifigant seismic event, there is truly no way to know when - and it is when, not if, we will experience one. Given that and given the course of action the City undertook to mitigate that threat we would like to see the risk to lives eliminated if at all possible. Now that it is possible, it would seem we should. Thanks again, Blaine
ReplyDelete