So, someone literally dies in his building, and he doesn't mention it?
That would be bad for business.
And it's not up to code? That's fucked
He SAID they did a great job, what more do you want from him GAWD.
Pretty sure it's where he lived before he became president. Now he just lives in Mar-a-Lago.
firemxn
Trump fought legislation requiring sprinklers in NYC buildings
excuse me sir do you have a license to burn here
This reminds me of an unincorporated tiny community just north of Vancouver. It's entirely populated by rich people; the average value of a house in that neighbourhood is $3 million dollars. It's an unincorporated community so they don't have to pay taxes for various city services, at the expense of not having those extra services.
Anyway, someone's Ferrari-bodykit cheap car spontaneously caught fire while nobody was home and burned the whole house down. The closest fire departments drove up to put it out, but...
This unincorporated community had a completely inadequate municipal water supply that can't come close to handling firefighting.
The fire department had to stick their hoses into the sea to pump water and start fighting the fire and a fire boat had to be called in. Because of the delays, the entire house burned fucking down and the neighbours were threatened, and if there had been proper fire hydrants firefighters would've been able to save the whole house except for the garage.
Oh, and the guy was made to pay for the fire departments' expenses even though they were basically useless in the situation because, again, they're an unincorporated community and they don't pay taxes for fire service so they have to pay for emergency services a la carte.
People living in unincorporated areas and voluntarily foregoing fire service is not a rare thing in BC, and it bites people in the ass.
This is what taxes and code standards are for, kids.
Damn, it's like a Libertarian wet dream.
I once got into some debate with what I can only describe as an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian who insisted on privately funded "public services", wonder what they'd think of this news.
A different country and built decades before Grenfell towers were. This argument lacks any critical thinking or logic.
Yeah because it's impossible to install fire safety measures to existing buildings.
Grenfell was a very high profile event and made international news, it's not exactly a stretch to imagine the owners of other tall buildings might re-consider how fucked their building and the people within might be if it caught fire.
It's the headquarters of the Trump Organization, and it used to be his primary residence.
Almost seems like we have taxes and regulations for a reason,
man would I like to stick that in the faces of the "taxation is theft" crowd.
Most ironical, most airheads parroting this garbage would benefit from having the rich adequately taxed
and funding social programs, health care and infrastructure that all benefit equally from.
But no, gotta tax break the rich and increase "defence" -budget every year.
The only thing trickling down is bullshit.
Trump being a scumbag is nothing new, but knowing how opulent his room in the tower is, and yet he avoided installing sprinklers for what I can only assume to be cost cutting, it's just so indescribably greedy.
It's not impossible, but it is incredibly expensive and would require extensive deconstruction and rewiring of every floor of the building.
Besides, Grenfell is the fault of the buildings knowingly using a flammable material to insulate the building against local statutes. Trump's building follows the letter of the law, no matter how poorly it is written/implemented.
He specifically opposed laws intended to solve this problem and only backed off when a grandfathering clause was added in that exempted buildings such as his from compliance.
But sure, he's following the letter of the law as he insisted it was written. His greed killed a man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
