We begin today with 9 pages of building permits dating from 2003 to 2004. Anyone see any references to the roof or the structure of the building? Any mention of any corrosion, concrete deterioration or problems with either? Any mention of improper drainage? Any mention of improper welds? Any mention of the roof not being in excellent condition? Remember: not only was this building inspected by the City of Greensboro in 2004 but also in 1974.
Here we have from the City of Greensboro the RUCO Case Report for Heritage House Unit 220 for the year 2008. I asked for all RUCO case reports dating back to 2008 but this was the only one I received for that year. As you can see, there was no mention of any structural problems. As a matter of fact: there was no mention of any problems at all.
In this document titled Heritage House Planning Board Memo we can find lots of RUCO (Rental Unit Certificate of Occupancy) inspections dated from 2001 until July of 2014 but nary a mention of corrosion, concrete deterioration, improper drainage, improper welds or a bad roof.
But in the SKA Report commissioned in July 2014 by the City of Greensboro as part of their ongoing effort to take Heritage House away from its rightful owners we suddenly discover that there are problems with corrosion, concrete deteroration, improper drainage, improper welds, a bad roof and more that were all found to be in excellent condition and repeatedly signed off on by City of Greensboro Code Enforcement and Building Inspections since 2003.
Now how could that be possible? Madam Mayor? Councilman Barber? Can a rental property in Greensboro, North Carolina be considered safe for occupancy with corrosion, concrete deteroration, improper drainage, improper welds and a leaky roof that is about to fall?
Or are those kinds of inspections only reserved for properties you are planning to give away to connected developers at taxpayers' expense?
Who lied, SKA or all those employees of the City of Greensboro who signed off on hundreds of inspections over all those years?