When I was living in my previous apartment, I was a little concerned about the crack running all the way down my bedroom wall, or the fact that my bedroom was so not level that my office chair was rolling away on its own. I reassured myself, though: surely in the Western world, a building isn't just going to collapse because the ground settles a little. Well, about that...
How the fuck does a condo building go and collapse all on its own, seemingly without any help from explosives?
Found out what the hell Guller was talking about. Condo collapsed in Florida.
Wow, the video is horrifying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR29pLccutY Imagine being in the second section to fall down. At least the people in the first section probably didn't have time to realize what hit them.
Dang. 9-11esque.
Horrifying :(
Only in Chi- oh shit.
That's really crappy soil to build on, and I bet that's going to turn out to be part of the cause.
If you look at that building on Google Maps, it looks like it survived the Siege of Sarajevo from some of the angles. Chunks of concrete are missing all over the place, one of the balconies seems to have a hole in it covered only by exposed rebars, and someone on reddit pointed out a large crack. For all I know, maybe all 40-year old buildings have chunks of concrete raining from it, but it does look bad at first glance.
Around here, it's salt filled water that fucks our concrete roads.
Rusted rebars didn't help when the ground collapsed under the garage.
I hope it wasn't built to code.
The numbers keep getting worse. :(
At least 159 people now unaccounted for, Miami-Dade County mayor says
https://www.cnn.com/webview/us/live-news/miami-florida-building-collapse-06-25-21/h_ac6115050321945f3c5565f639ed0071
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.
Nothing
Is there a way to move the the related posts from the OT thread? I didn't realize how bad the situation was when I first started a discussion there, it looked like a facade peeled away.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2021, 07:51:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.
There are no building codes?
Florida buildings codes are actually pretty stringent and strongly enforced, as a result of Hurricane Andrew. During the hurricane, you could see some blocks completely demolished, and others largely standing, merely because different blocks were built by different contractors. However, this condo building was built a decade before Andrew, so it may well have suffered from things that later building codes were attempting to fix.
At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 25, 2021, 09:06:00 AM
At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc.
Exactly.
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2021, 07:51:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.
There are no building codes?
That socialism! ;)
Quote from: Monoriu on June 25, 2021, 09:06:00 AM
At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc.
It's possibly a sinkhole that happened right under the building. Or it wasn't build on solid ground to begin with and it was only a matter of time before something like this would happen.
Global warming means rising sea levels means more erosion means increased risk of sinkholes and soil degradation for near-water properties like these. since it's totally anti-american to do anything about it, they'll adapt.
Quote from: viper37 on June 25, 2021, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2021, 07:51:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.
There are no building codes?
That socialism! ;)
When we do socialism we don't call it socialism. We call it following the rules.
Unless we don't like the rules, then they are regulations.
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 07:53:49 AM
Is there a way to move the the related posts from the OT thread? I didn't realize how bad the situation was when I first started a discussion there, it looked like a facade peeled away.
Done
That video is terrifying.
We are all going to be making jokes about socialism, but does anyone remember that Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking to some moron righttard about regulations, and the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?
Good times.
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2021, 09:52:56 AM
That video is terrifying.
We are all going to be making jokes about socialism, but does anyone remember that Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking to some moron righttard about regulations, and the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?
Good times.
I respect the market plenty but it is not as magical as eyepatch guy seems to think it is. It is very good at efficiently distributing resources but sometimes efficiency is not the only concern, hence why we need
socialism communist central planning regulations.
The building probably should have been condemned, but doing inspections and condemning buildings is a pretty pricey proposition for a city government. But a total disaster can do wonders for politicians suddenly finding the political will, as I am finding out here in Texas.
I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is. I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut. I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job. The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 10:03:39 AM
I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is. I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut. I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job. The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.
This could be America's 'Grenfell Tower' moment; I wonder if it'll be dealt with as well as we're handling our buildings problem?
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 10:03:39 AM
I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is. I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut. I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job. The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.
In the UK with Grenfell - which is still being resolved - a big issue is that it's basically self-regulation and the nature of the industry. I really think construction needs tight, external regulation (but that costs money so....).
So with flammable cladding here the rule was that cladding can only be of "limited compustibility" which broadly meant you needed to get a compustibility grade of "A2" or better and there's a formal standard testing it. BUT local officials don't do building inspections any more and there's no single government regulator - rather companies are approved as "approved inspectors" and hired as a contractor, normally by the person paying for construction. Plus the key underlying thing is to build a safe building and there aren't detailed, regularly updated with best practice, technical regulations. So there's lots of industry bodies issuing advice on what that looks like instead - they sort of fill in the technical detail.
So for example on cladding in particular the industry guidance says that only using the A2 grade cladding is a route to compliance, but there's other options like if you get bespoke fire test for your cladding design that can be certified by a fire inspector even if the individual components would normally be allowed, or (cheaper still!) you commission a "desktop study". So basically you go to a fire inspector who has done multiple different fire tests of different designs and get them to say "based on the results in my experience" this cladding is safe without actually testing it.
And there was even an industry body (the National House Building Council) that issued guidance saying you didn't even need a desktop study. They basically said on the basis of their review of tests and desktop studies other materials were safe. When what the desktop studies and fire tests can legitimately test is whether specific designs for using those unsafe/sub-A2 materials were safe - for example if you build in enough gaps to stop fire spreading or include some A2 sections to block it - instead they've extrapolated to say the materials themselves are safe.
No idea if it's the same in the US - but I do not trust our regulations and I don't trust the construction industry to self-regulate. I think the cost pressures and the contracting model make it particularly vulnerable and risky for that sort of thing. I am thinking of looking to buy a flat in the next few years and I don't even look at new-builds or anything built since the 70s because I just don't trust them. There's a big fight over the cost of removing cladding from buildings here (4 years after Grenfell) but I also know that some banks won't give you a mortgage for buildings with certain types of cladding - so I just avoid looking at that entire market because I worry that I couldn't sell it because it's become unmortgageable so I'd be trapped in an unsafe flat :ph34r:
The footage from Florida is really awful though and, as you say, given the risks in Florida I would expect them to be pretty strict on this stuff.
Edit: And with construction specifically I think the very strong contracting/sub-contracting model is really good for managing risk from a financial perspective - and possibly even project management - but I'm not convinced it doesn't actually increase the risk around the construction itself.
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2021, 09:52:56 AM
the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?
Good times.
According to Dguller, the new Florida building code is much more stringent and heavily enforced. What's left to see is if such buildings, pre-dating the code, should be investigated.
It's not the first time I see images of building with a crater underneath it, or just beside it, but usually, it's only single-houses, so much less people per square feet.
It's terrible, but I am unsure if the problem can be fixed before another incident like this happens. The government should be footing the bill to repair older buildings to bring up to current norms, but if we're talking about solidifying foundations, it's not gonna be easy and it will involve a lot of billions$. Not sure the Floridian voters will agree to pay a lot more in taxes to finance that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2021, 09:56:55 AM
The building probably should have been condemned, but doing inspections and condemning buildings is a pretty pricey proposition for a city government. But a total disaster can do wonders for politicians suddenly finding the political will, as I am finding out here in Texas.
lots of beach front properties in Florida should be condemned, I suppose. I am unsure that moving in the swampy center will be ideal either.
Ok, honestly, if it is, as I think, a sinkhole problem, I am at a loss of how to repair the damages done to the environment while not creating new ones, for Florida, at least.
Quote from: viper37 on June 25, 2021, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2021, 09:52:56 AM
the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?
Good times.
According to Dguller, the new Florida building code is much more stringent and heavily enforced. What's left to see is if such buildings, pre-dating the code, should be investigated.
It's not the first time I see images of building with a crater underneath it, or just beside it, but usually, it's only single-houses, so much less people per square feet.
It's terrible, but I am unsure if the problem can be fixed before another incident like this happens. The government should be footing the bill to repair older buildings to bring up to current norms, but if we're talking about solidifying foundations, it's not gonna be easy and it will involve a lot of billions$. Not sure the Floridian voters will agree to pay a lot more in taxes to finance that.
It's probably not a sinkhole. Sinkholes usually occur in the middle or west part of the peninsula (which were ancient limestone deposits; while most of the rest of the peninsula is mostly sand.):
(https://printablemapaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/map-of-sinkholes-in-florida-2018-a-pictures-of-hole-2019-florida-sinkhole-map.jpg)
Dade County, where this occurred, is the southernmost county on the east side.
Quote from: viper37 on June 25, 2021, 01:06:35 PM
The government should be footing the bill to repair older buildings to bring up to current norms, but if we're talking about solidifying foundations, it's not gonna be easy and it will involve a lot of billions$. Not sure the Floridian voters will agree to pay a lot more in taxes to finance that.
Why should the government be footing the bill for that?
The government didn't pay for new buildings to be up to current standards, and it didn't pay for older buildings that exceeded the codes pre andrew. Seems like a bailout of landlords and other large property owners that have unsafe buildings.
Just awful. :(
The only good thing I saw was that man who pulled that child out of the wreckage.
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2021, 07:51:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?
It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.
There are no building codes?
Florida is mostly limestone so sinkholes can strike anywhere, anytime.
EDIT: Or not, as the above map demonstrates. Learned something today.
The discussion/speculation with the engineer talking heads seems to revolve around the integrity of the foundations and/or supporting structures on the lower levels. Some combination of construction and maintenance.
2018 structural engineer report
https://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/town-clerk-documents/champlain-towers-south-public-records/8777-collins-ave---structural-field-survey-report.pdf?sfvrsn=882a1194_2
That is some extensive damage and maintenance issues. I can probably guess the decision was made it would be ungodly expensive to do the repairs so just hope nothing goes wrong.
Also some bad writing - surely you lead with the most serious issues and what needs to be done about them rather than issues with the window sealent and balconies :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:11:49 PM
Also some bad writing - surely you lead with the most serious issues and what needs to be done about them rather than issues with the window sealent and balconies :blink:
I think you can expect the client to read the whole report.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:11:49 PM
Also some bad writing - surely you lead with the most serious issues and what needs to be done about them rather than issues with the window sealent and balconies :blink:
As an engineer I often do a certain order when I write reports, not even bothering to mention some serious issue until I get to that part of the report, so it could be that is just how this engineer's reports are written.
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
Edit: And - "for detailed analysis please see schedule/appendix/annex".
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:11:49 PM
Also some bad writing - surely you lead with the most serious issues and what needs to be done about them rather than issues with the window sealent and balconies :blink:
I bet they were putting the report together with standard forms and those were easy issues to write up and complete. You put them at the top of the report so the last sections to be completed won't interfere with the spacing of the previously completed sections.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
Edit: And - "for detailed analysis please see schedule/appendix/annex".
Oh God. Half the lawyers I work with want me to call those "exhibits" and the other half want me to call them "attachments"
They just keep changing it from one to the other arbitrarily whenever I want to file something.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
I'm not aware of any industry where not reading safety reports is an option.
Food service.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
I'm not aware of any industry where not reading safety reports is an option.
It looks like the report was addressed to the condo board. I wonder who was on that, and if they cared.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
I'm not aware of any industry where not reading safety reports is an option.
It looks like the report was addressed to the condo board. I wonder who was on that, and if they cared.
If they don't care then making the report look like a YouTube thumbnail won't make them care.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
I'm not aware of any industry where not reading safety reports is an option.
It looks like the report was addressed to the condo board. I wonder who was on that, and if they cared.
Yeah - and even if someone has to read a report doesn't mean you shouldn't make it user friendly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:20:44 PM
As a lawyer - I've always learned that clients will probably read one or two pages at most (especially if they're not also lawyers) so make sure the most important information is at the top and possibly in bold :lol:
I'm not aware of any industry where not reading safety reports is an option.
It looks like the report was addressed to the condo board. I wonder who was on that, and if they cared.
Yeah - and even if someone has to read a report doesn't mean you shouldn't make it user friendly.
You'd have to be functionally illiterate not to understand the report.
Are people in the US and UK really that dumb? I don't think so. It seems unlikely to me that grown-ups wouldn't be able to process a 9 page document with color pictures.
I think the condo board cared, they set aside $12 million to act on it, if I understand the sequence of events correctly. That's quite a big chunk of money for a building with 150 units. They were under impression that it wasn't urgent urgent, though, which is why they took a couple of years to think it over.
I keep thinking back to the images from Google Maps street view. The amount of concrete spalling that was visible seemed very excessive. Obviously I wouldn't be looking at that building if it didn't fall down, so a lot of bias has to be assumed, but I don't think I've ever seen a building that was so pock-marked with missing chunks of concrete.
The stuff that was visible was probably inconsequential; a balcony with an exposed rebar for a floor won't make the building fall down. However, it may have been an indication that the steel rebars were popping concrete off in all the places, including the ones that made the building stay up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 04:11:49 PM
Also some bad writing - surely you lead with the most serious issues and what needs to be done about them rather than issues with the window sealent and balconies :blink:
I agree but I come at it from a similar perspective.
Expert engineer reports prepared for litigation always start with an executive summary or prelim statement highlighting the key points.
But engineers that arent professional witnesses don't necessarily think that way. This report definitely buried the lead but probably not deliberately.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 05:00:39 PM
Are people in the US and UK really that dumb? I don't think so. It seems unlikely to me that grown-ups wouldn't be able to process a 9 page document with color pictures.
Clearly you've never served on an American condo board.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 05:00:39 PM
Are people in the US and UK really that dumb? I don't think so. It seems unlikely to me that grown-ups wouldn't be able to process a 9 page document with color pictures.
Clearly you've never served on an American condo board.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 05:05:13 PM
I think the condo board cared, they set aside $12 million to act on it, if I understand the sequence of events correctly. That's quite a big chunk of money for a building with 150 units. They were under impression that it wasn't urgent urgent, though, which is why they took a couple of years to think it over.
Assuming DG got the reserve right, this seems to make sense.
The report is very bad, but doesn't directly say "this building might collapse at any moment!!!!"
I could easily see a board adding an assessment to build up a fund and then take time to price out contractors and do the repairs ad seriatum.
What I found interesting about this report was the bluntness that the consultant using calling out the deficiencies of the original engineering firm. That's the kind of comment people can sue for defamation over, so this engineer must have been quite confident. That fact alone would have been a big red flag to me but a condo board member might not gave picked up on that.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 05:05:13 PM
I think the condo board cared, they set aside $12 million to act on it, if I understand the sequence of events correctly. That's quite a big chunk of money for a building with 150 units. They were under impression that it wasn't urgent urgent, though, which is why they took a couple of years to think it over.
It is a lot of money for just 150 units. I'm not sure how many units were lost in the building collapse, but I suspect there are less units now, which is going to make it even harder to raise the funds.
I don't think they're going to go forward with the repairs now.
Here is an article with pictures of the pool room from two days before collapse: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article252421658.html.
Between this, the engineering report from three years ago, and one of the victims on the phone saying that a hole formed in the pool deck, it seems like the strongest early theory is that the pool deck started off the collapse. It seems to be in the vicinity of where things started falling down first.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2021, 01:42:55 PM
Why should the government be footing the bill for that?
The government didn't pay for new buildings to be up to current standards, and it didn't pay for older buildings that exceeded the codes pre andrew. Seems like a bailout of landlords and other large property owners that have unsafe buildings.
if it's mandatory to upgrade your building to new standards, the govt has to foot part of the bill, since it's a sudden change in regulations.
Quote from: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:50:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2021, 01:42:55 PM
Why should the government be footing the bill for that?
The government didn't pay for new buildings to be up to current standards, and it didn't pay for older buildings that exceeded the codes pre andrew. Seems like a bailout of landlords and other large property owners that have unsafe buildings.
if it's mandatory to upgrade your building to new standards, the govt has to foot part of the bill, since it's a sudden change in regulations.
wut?
Grandfathering makes a lot more sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2021, 07:01:00 PM
Grandfathering makes a lot more sense.
I guess it depends on whether the laws of physics will agree to go easy on the grandfathers.
Along the lines of what Viper is talking about, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been changed several times to increase the accommodations mandated for the handicapped. when the school I work for upgraded a year ago, the Feds paid 40%, the state 20%, and the school 40% of the cost of the upgrades.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2021, 07:01:00 PM
Grandfathering makes a lot more sense.
it does, but I believe we were discussing a change to building code + an obligation to adapt older buildings within a short time frame.
Over here, whenever there are changes, they must be integrated in any future renovation projets, but not existing buildings. There were changes in isolation of foundations in the last Canadian building code. If I were to extend my house, I would need to make the new foundations conform to the new standards, but I wouldn't have to retouch the existing ones, unless I planned on elevating the house and extending the height of the existing foundations.
Same for commercial buildings, whenever there are changes, it is not always required to immediatly adapt the building. The one exception was the change to fire supression systems becoming mandatory for all retirement homes, public or private, even the smallish ones. Then the govt footed a part of the bill. Otherwise, lots of people couldn't have been able to afford the raise to their units.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2021, 07:06:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2021, 07:01:00 PM
Grandfathering makes a lot more sense.
I guess it depends on whether the laws of physics will agree to go easy on the grandfathers.
that Florida case look a little extreme. But with climate change and erosion, I figure lots of buildings along the coasts will eventually need to have their structural integrity strenghtened, probably not just in Florida.
I still don't know what cause these beams to crack like this though. It's not like it's a 100 years old building. Either there was a problem under the foundations in that specific section a little while ago causing these damages or the concrete was of a very bad quality to begin with and degraded quickly over the years.
12 dead, 149 still missing in condo collapse
https://www.cnn.com/webview/us/live-news/miami-florida-building-collapse-06-30-21/h_195b145db7732da9d736d280b90a0ec9?iid=cnn-mobile-app&adobe_mc=TS%3D1625055103%7CMCMID%3D65993415993841894238424722505577525822%7CMCAID%3D2FFE3D54BD348460-40000C5A2A4AAEC9%7CMCORGID%3D7FF852E2556756057F000101%40AdobeOrg
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2021, 09:02:20 PM
Along the lines of what Viper is talking about, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been changed several times to increase the accommodations mandated for the handicapped. when the school I work for upgraded a year ago, the Feds paid 40%, the state 20%, and the school 40% of the cost of the upgrades.
Himmm. :hmm:
40+20+40
Yeah, his numbers check out.
It sounds like the fire alarm should've gone off, but didn't. It's always frustrating when you read about such disasters, and realize how one little thing could've led to a much different outcome. I guess there are a lot of near disasters that do happen every day that we don't hear about, because one little thing there didn't fail.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/special-reports/surfside-investigation/article255942717.html
QuoteHallandale Beach-based Premier Fire Alarms and Integration Systems installed the system in 2017.
In a brief phone conversation Friday and subsequent text messages, Matthew Haiman, Premier's president, said that the company's system had worked properly and threatened to sue the Herald if it published a story.
"We have the records," Haiman said, although he said he would not show them to reporters.
"Go f--- yourself," he added. "Print your fake news."
:hmm: This is the kind of calm and measured person with sound judgment that I want installing my fire alarm system.
Time to file chapter 7 and start a new business entity under a new name.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2021, 05:01:08 PM
Time to file chapter 7 and start a new business entity under a new name.
You think they waited this long?