Alert: Hooligans**Bar Closed By City for Code Violation

Speaking of tracks, is this all because crew fans walk across the......nevermind.

 

Haha...

 

or roofs over tracks.

 

It's good to see the Railroad Tracks trying to fill in the void left behind from the resolution of the Parking Lots getting paved and Jeff Cunningham's return to the Black & Gold.

But trying to fill up two shoes with just one foot is not going to work. We need another almost Quixotic topic to fill the gaps. The Guillermo as Coach has potential but it's growth has seemed stunted lately.

 

I'd recommend against indoor pyrotechnics at Hooligans. Apart from that how is the lack of sprinklers as allowed by law according to Fid, a lifesaver with occupancy of 99 or less? If the presence of 99 people or less doesn't require sprinklers, why not allow up to 99 people so they can stay in business and generate the revenue to pay for upgrades? If you think every business should have sprinklers, feel free to lobby the city and state.

You don't think $70 per hour to watch soccer is a high wage? It's not a lot to fight actual fires but the pub would have to pay a runinous amount to stay open. Put it this way, my brother who is a graduate of the Ohio Fire Academy and presently laid off, would be happy to watch soccer for less than 70 per hour if he lived in Columbus.

I know of a city in Ohio where the firefighters butted heads with city council for years asking for a new firestation. They eventually condemned their existing facilities. The city moved them into trailers parked in what had been a public alley. After about 10 years the firefighters got a new firestation. So according to firemen, the fire station wasn't up to code.

You're from Chicago so I guess you can be forgiven for not knowing what you're talking about. The new courthouse was built to spec. The issue wasn't faulty construction, it was that the place was in effect built too well. Radio signals couldn't travel throughout the building, so a jailer bringing prisoners to court couldn't necessarily call for help if there was a problem. Opening was delayed while they added signal amplifiers

It's certainly a conflict of interest for a city to require private citizens to use a specified vendor for services when other potential vendors could provide an equally good service at a better price. Although government has in effect become a special interest of its own, in theory the city government represents everybody and shouldn't do favors for particular persons at the expense of others. The rule is in the union contract so the union can leverage the city's power to the benefit of their members. That's fine when negotiating with the city but not when it comes to people who aren't parties to the contract. A less polite term would be extortion. That's what we have here with the city in effect saying "Nice little bar you have here. Be a shame if something happened to it, but if you pay $70 an hour to my friends you'll be ok."

Really? Maybe things are that bad in Chicago but in Columbus I'm fairly confident if I called the fire department they'd come, whether to my house or to Hooligans if needed.

 

My waitress at Applebees told me that it was they who caused Hooligans to be shut down. She said that their corporate team realized that Hooligans was taking business away from them and had to be stopped at all costs.

 

Fid,
The real reason for the closure is that Mayor's wife wants to open a poodle boutique and dog biscuit bakery at the site. That's why she sent in the inspector. Got this straight from my mutt's groomer who heard it from the sister of an unimpeachable source at the county dog shelter.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hamburgler03 again.

 

And yet they were offered a chance to stay open if they pay someone 70 an hour to sit around in case of need. And those somebodys just happened to have a contract with the city and be campaign contributors to the mayor. They were also the face of the last income tax levy campaign which raised the money to pay the inspectors who issued the citations. Do you really think development decisions in Columbus are made on neutral principles of merit? Tell that to Penn National.

I think your argument about safety went out the window back in post 116, assuming Patricksp is correct. Yet you continue to argue

 

Breaking news....

"Riots break out in London due to Hooligan's bar closing.


The cause of the closing seems to be because of a shady city government.... or possibly a normal inspection.

My money is on Andres Mendoza. He has to be involved somehow."





All of that was from a credible* news source.


*credibility is yet to be determined

 

Umm, no they aren't permitted to hire a firefighter of their choice and pay him a mutually agreeable rate. It has to be a Columbus firefighter paid 70 an hour. Not sure if Hooligans even gets to choose the Columbus firefighter or if he's provided by the union. Why can't any properly acredited Ohio firefighter fulfil the requirement? I know the answer but am curious how you think it doesn't have anything to do with labor politics.

No, but you must be if you think an onsite fire fighter is equivalent to a working sprinkler system and sufficient exits for a crowd. Neither the Hooligans nor I object to a safe environment. My objection is to the city's reprehensible behavior in this matter. The HSH sought and received approval last year for their pub. Based on that approval they went ahead and invested their money. Now some city functionary decides another functionary made a mistake and reclassifies their occupancy code, and immediately shuts them down without giving them a chance to appeal to the environmental court. That's the very essence of arbitrary and capricious behavior. Why bother having courts if we're delegating judicial powers to city inspectors?

If the city of Columbus were operating in good faith, they'd let Hooligans stay open while the court considered the reclassification. They'd let Hooligans have less than 100 people at a time if the sprinkler issue is the main problem. They'd reimburse Hooligans their design and legal expenses from last year when the city's approval apparently is meaningless. But somehow you know as well as I the city won't pay and would assert sovereign immunity if sued. Frankly expecting a tenant to make 50,000 dollars in improvements to a building they don't own, which is 91 years old, with an appraised value of 194K is idiotic.

 

What's pushing is it is someone probably complained. Sometimes people of an affected group such as someone in a wheelchair will take it upon themselves to report such obstructions.

What's more important? Helping a business "thrive" that doesn't take the time ensure they meet the HSW requirements of the business they're operating or the safety of the people patronizing said business.

Overlooked by the business, most likely.

I'd be shocked that in a city the size of Columbus, the various departments involved have the time to toy with you after they get done responding to all the complaints that the public calls in any given day.

Funny that they guy in charge of all this gets it, but PO'ed doesnt. Probably because he's a lot more invested (financially, emotionally, legally, etc) in multiple ways in this than PO'ed is.

The courts disagree with you, as well as your insurers. It is always the responsibility of the tenant/business operator to comply with all laws & regulations.

LL's usually protect themselves pretty well. Improvements are generally the responsibility of the tenant as well as compliance with all applicable laws and codes.

Petty crap like making sure the employees and patrons are safe. You know, the actual function of a municipal government.

Tenants. They are the ones who operate the business.

Well I suppose he really doesn't care who pays for it so long as they pay their rent and building maintenance fees and utilities, if any. Pretty standard commercial leasing terms.

Not required for their occupancy.

I suppose they could, if they had the money. Then they could be the landlord to the other tenants and have to worry about insurance to cover losses by tenants who are not compliant with city code, having to keep other spaces leased out, general O&M of the building envelope, roof repair & replacement, HVAC equipment and of course, property taxes.

It's not likely they would get a 20 year lease either.

Really? It happens all the time in the process you yourself describe below.

Businesses lease space all the time and make improvements they'll never own, just so they can operate their businesses, make revenue to pay bills/loans and hopefully profit.

One single injury or death due to non-compliance with codes will do a lot more financial damage than the cost required for compliance.

Commercial Contractors and Homebuilders always complain about the costs of compliance with codes. They wouldn't comply with anything if they didn't have to, and yet, in municipalities with the most stringent codes (and they're all pretty much the same nationwide under IBC) they all manage to make very good profits.

Which will do little to suppress the spread of a fire until the occupants can exit the building.

If a business is open to the public, particularly public assembly and commercial operations, there City can generally inspect during hours of operation with little to no notification.

It's looking like the Owner in this case understands that the inspector isn't wrong and it's not worth spending a lot of time, money and effort on a losing cause just because you want to show off your JD in Message Board Law.

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That's their ********ing job.

So you want the City to voluntarily violate a labor contract with the local IAFF? I'm going to bet that it's a built in protection for the firefighters since they're usually legally prohibited from striking. It keeps the city from bringing in potentially unqualified firefighters in the event of a labor dispute.

More like tinfoilhattery.

You conveniently ignore the other requirements, particularly the fire separation partitioning for adjacent occupancies.

As would I, but pyro is hardly the only source of ignition in such occupancies. Grease fires happen all the time in bars, particularly if their kitchen exhaust equipment ain't up to snuff. HVAC fan motors overheat and spark fires in confined spaces such as above the ceiling and people are unaware that the fire is even going until there is a flash over or a gas line is ruptured. Of course, the most common is some careless twit tossing a cigarette butt into a trash can in a room full of combustible materials such as the stock room where paper towels and paper goods are stored.

The sprinklers are only part of the issue, which Fid pointed out, but you chose to ignore.

Pretty much all new assembly occupancies already do as do renovations that operate under assembly occupancies. More and more businesses are as well because of discount you get on insurance and the allowances you get on other requirements that are relaxed with the installation of sprinklers.

I was referring to your complaints about the "scheme" of the regulatory authority paying it's employee's "high wages" to find defects in the subject population. Which was what you typed. Please try to keep up.

I'm sorry that wherever he got laid off, the city council decided to be so business friendly that they can't afford to pay professional fire fighters to provide public safety, thereby putting residents at a higher risk and raising their insurance rates due to increased response times. Then again, he probably lives in the same town as Joe the (Unlicensed) Plumber.

What's your brother going to do though when a fire breaks out? Get ran down like Kevin Bacon in Animal House?

I know of a city in Ohio where the firefighters butted heads with city council for years asking for a new firestation. They eventually condemned their existing facilities. The city moved them into trailers parked in what had been a public alley. After about 10 years the firefighters got a new firestation. So according to firemen, the fire station wasn't up to code.

Who condemned the Fire station? The Firemen? Unless said city has some whacky laws, firemen don't have that authority. Maybe you could provide a link to that incident?

Just another of your really bad assumptions

So far, you're describing yourself.

That's hardly an inspection issue as you presented it or a building being "built too well". Sounds a lot more like a performance issue related to the owner or engineer specified equipment, though such comm equipment is almost always specified by the owner, based on whatever dog & pony show or the coke & whores that have been provided to the owner's IT department so that they'll "select" a certain manufacturer's equipment.

Not likely due to the union agreement.

Which they would be doing under your scenario.

By definition, the people within the city limits are parties to the contract.

Look, we get it. You're a professional victim. The Ownership of the bar doesn't appear to be, but you are.

Again, not in Chicago.

Actually, FD's don't respond to calls outside their jurisdiction w/o prior mutual protection agreements, always with the understanding that they'll leave if there is a call in their jurisdiction that they have to meet. Most cities have these agreements in place, but one jurisdiction's FD doesn't respond to another's calls unless their AHJ calls for assistance or there is some catastrophic emergency.

The hole you've dug yourself into with the shovel Fid provided is impressive. Now, I'm just going to fill it with concrete.

What's one fireman going to do? Really? Other than not panic and try to suppress with the fire extinguishers that are hopefully present?

Isn't your brother a fire man? You seem to hate them. It sure looks like the voters felt there was a need to improve public safety.

They're usually highly influenced by the political money of the development/building community to feel that compliance with HSW and now ADAABAAG & Environmental regulations are "killing business".

I guess it has everything to do with a legally binding contract.

Actually, you do seem to be objecting, though the owner doesn't.

The fact that the pub ownership has chosen not to fight this probably means there are some facts that you're not aware of that make this different from the fantasy you constructed above.

You keep ignoring all the other safety issues, for some reason.

And yet, it happens with newly signed leases every day, because tenants don't have the capital to build their own buildings.

 

And this includes the quasi-troll well, he's walking the line after all, it takes one to know one hehehehehe (He's some civil engineer or whatnot in Chicago).

With regards to debates and/or arguments, silly Cowherd's got me saying this now: Take the emotion out of it.

 

Not to interrupt, because watching people run our club for us is entertaining as hell, but there are things going on. Mainly, Hooligans might very well be open for beers on Saturday.

Informational Link

 

That's good since Blake said they'd likely be unable to ever reopen if they were closed for the next home match.

 

How does one become a member?

 

Come to the club on a gameday. Come to the tailgate we're having this Saturday. Come to the USA v Mexico party at 4th street tomorrow night. Hell, come to my house and I'll sign you up.

 

First, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Warmth on the longest post ever. I can't comment on it's merit, as my ADD limits me to writings shorter than the Iliad.

Second, if a Great White type event happened, what is a $70/hour rented fireman going to do? I'll chip in the $70 if someone like this is hired.