Capizzi and his father made up their minds years ago that they wanted it
demolished and replaced.
The first line of that structural engineer’s Executive
Summary begins: “The building
is generally sound and in good structural condition, but requires
critical repairs of limited and specific structural deficiencies.” The first part of the sentence says a lot because
Capizzi sought out and paid an engineer (with Lodi tax dollars) hoping that he would deliver the worst possible news. Capizzi and Licata still speak as though the
building is not structurally sound.
If you read the
whole report and all the recommendations, you can see that there is no urgency to
act. The engineer had to list recommendations to justify his
pay and to please Capizzi. But
many of his observations contained the words, “generally fair to good condition”,
and the recommendations lack urgency or necessity.
You can see from Joe Licata’s emails that the BOE
members were not familiar with the assessment over a month after it was
issued. That further shows the lack of
urgency or necessity.
I do not want to take anything out of context. Please read the structural engineer’s report
for yourself. Look at each
recommendation and ask yourself, would anyone even be discussing this if Marc
Capizzi didn’t pay someone to say it? Notice
how Capizzi’s numbers in this week’s article don’t even match those in the report. He isn’t even on the same page with himself. The link below contains the whole report:
Furthermore, the current assessment of the building
and property combined is only $2,010,700.
It is just
crazy talk by Marc Capizzi to say it requires $5.8 million in repairs or $7.5
million to replace.
If Capizzi wants out the the building so badly, there are more than enough alternative options that would cost a fraction of what he is proposing.
If Capizzi wants out the the building so badly, there are more than enough alternative options that would cost a fraction of what he is proposing.
