The meeting for answers to the housing inspection move seems to have created more questions than it answered. If it was truely a cost saving move, will moving Inspectors to the fire department really save money? If the department couldn’t do it’s job before, should they be advising the Fire Department on how to do it? How will driving a Fire Department truck to where the cars are parked save money? Does Tony LaHood actually think anyone is buying into his statement that the inspection department is vindictive and carry grudges?
Several things didn’t seem to make sense in the Times article in today’s paper. The first was Craig Malin running the meeting. If he was his usually wordy self, I doubt any questions got answered by him. He is a consumate politcian who can talk for 10 minutes and not say anything the average Joe can comprehend. How is there $197,000 available to help move inspectors to the Fire Department when this is supposed to be a cost cutting measure? Why is the Fire Department taking both sides of the arguement? Either the job can be done or not, unless you take the Queen of Denial slant that there are different versions of the truth.
Tom Carnahan wants the bad property owners to pay more for services so it isn’t subsidized. While making sense at first glance, all it does is raise rents to people who can’t rent from better landlords. No one, except the government is going to take a loss on their profits. I do, for once, agree with Fritz Miller that all city departments should take a hit of some kind. I think the department needed work, but not beyond rehabilitation.