Random, Yet Interesting Quotes from Monday’s Decatur City Commission Meeting
Decatur Metro | | 9:34 am- Scott Drake reported that he had attended a homeowners meeting at the Renaissance condo building about “problems they’re going to be having with some construction issues….very similar to what happened at the Artisan where they had to scaffold the whole building and slowly make some repairs.
- Mayor Baskett spoke to the fact that at his request he and the City Manager had a meeting with Superintendent Phyllis Edwards and Board Chair Marc Wisniewski to discuss the upcoming Beacon Hill renovation and the planned apartment developments downtown. Then the mayor added, “No where in that discussion did they mention that they were going to be voting on a bond issue tomorrow night or do those large construction plans at the high school and middle school, but maybe I guess we still have work to do on your communications.”
- “We need to think about our decision from last December…Yes, there’s a sense that there wasn’t enough public engagement for this project. It was our thought that there had been plenty of public engagement for the project, because in addition to all that, we had a task force working on a number of issues including that for more than a year. And they had had several public input sessions in which those very issues were raised. All of that, we had tight enough guidelines that we could proceed doing that permit. Having said all of that, there is not a person sitting up here who doesn’t have some kind of concern about the way this worked and we’ll be having discussions about that. I can tell you that that’s going to happen. Whether it’ll lead beyond that or not, I can’t say. But there will be discussions.” – Mayor Jim Baskett responding to a 335 resident who spoke about the 315 West Ponce approval process during the “Requests and Other Business” portion to a meeting
They weren’t going to vote on a bond issue. They were only voting to accept the architects study/concept plan so that they could analyze it. They have to accept the study before they can consider it. Baskett is mistaken on this.
I guess that reinforces his point on communications.
oops…missed an apostrophe.
Hmm… another building with stucco problems eh?
I’ve always thought that stucco should stay in the Southwest where it fits architecturally and in terms of a dry climate.
If Decatur wants to retain it’s charm and appeal the powers that be really need to start now not after all the apartments are built.
It’s very hard to wring your hands while you’re counting the tax revenue.
Hudsucker – we have a mid-density downtown core that really needs more residential options if it is going to support the types of establishments that provide charm and appeal. Much of what we have now is built for people who drive here to partake in. They may keep coming, or they may decide to go somewhere else over time. If we build residential units in our downtown core, then we will have built a more sustainable downtown. It can be supported by people who walk, rather than drive, to spend their money in and otherwise use the charming and appealing facilities (retail, restaurants, offices, parks). Further, offering different types of residential options, such as rental multifamily residential, not only helps our municipal coffers, but is exactly meeting our stated goals in the latest strategic plan. No hand wringing is needed. These developments are good. Empty parking lots and acres of asphalt, which we have now, seem to detract from charm and appeal if you ask me.
It seems to me that downtown is a walkable distance for almost every resident in the city. The exception might be the near the city line in the Oakhurst area.
If it were nice weather everyday of the year, always light out, no one had any mobility issues, and weren’t lugging around a million trillion billion children, sure, in that case almost everyone could walk
Bulldog – that’s part of the point! We have low density surrounding our core, which means there aren’t enough people nearby to support our walkable commercial options. (Walkable commercial options = “charming”). So we need to insert more housing downtown. This has been part of the city’s plan since 1982. Not sure why it’s become an issue now.
I’m not arguing with you at all.
What I’m saying is that for most Decatur residents it is already a walkable distance. The number of people who live within our 4 square mile city and drive to downtown Decatur is ridiculous.
You’re right but distance is just one of many factors in walkability. There’s all kinds of other stuff like infrastructure presence; infrastructure design; functional design speed on adjacent streets; trees and other protection from the elements; useful destinations; and visual engagement/delight along the way.
Compare the block of Church just south of Ponce with the one just north. Clearly one’s a lot more inviting than the other even though they’re similar sized blocks and both have sidewalks.
I am nearish the city line in Oakhurst. It takes approximately 1/2 an hour to walk to the library
That must be an estimate…surely, you’ve never done it!!!
+1 to Warren Buffet’s response, particularly the point about people who have been driving in to Decatur to enjoy its businesses may not always do so. Other areas of ITP and OTP have been catching up with Decatur in terms of having a walkable core, or pocket, of businesses. I recently went up to Brookhaven for the first time in a long while and was very surprised at some of the pockets of commercial activity that have been popping up, such as Savi Urban Market in pocket of restaurants, yogurt stores and condo/apts walkable to many neighborhoods. Brookhaven isn’t alone in this, and less people will need to drive to Decatur. The more we can build in support of our own residents for our wonderful downtown business core, the better. Best way to do that is stay on the mid-density path.
That is interesting. I have heard good things about how, for example, downtown Roswell is developing into a nice little commercial district with good restaurants, etc. Even as far out as Woodstock I have heard, as well, is doing the same thing.
Suburbs around Metro Atlanta, it seems, are copying what has made downtown Decatur so successful. If Decatur is going to continue its success we are going to have to keep building on what has gotten us here in the first place.
I don’t think that it will, but it would be a shame if the City were to cave to a handful of NIMBY’s who want to put a stop to the City’s progress in order to preserve their special interests.
I don’t see Decatur becoming less desirable anytime soon.
It may not become less desirable, but, as Marty is pointing out, our “charm” is not as unique as it once was. We have to keep moving forward or we will lose out to our competitors. I.e., someone from Roswell no long has to trek here for a night out in a “charming” urban atmosphere. They can go just down the street from them (an option they didn’t have just a few years ago). So while we are still desirable, we may find ourselves with less “outside support” for our “charm.” Therefore we need to grow the support from within. The key is to find the BALANCE – grow our residential without loosing the charm. Which gets back to Hudsucker’s point, which is well taken, here. Ultimately, I’m saying that because we still have huge swaths of our downtown property devoted to parking cars, we have plenty of room to add more real beneficial development and actually improve our charm. We haven’t reached our tipping point and the current proposals won’t put us over.
Funn you mention Roswell. Some of the locals there seem to have taken a page from the Decatur aesthetic police handbook:
http://roswell.patch.com/articles/seeing-red-mac-mcgee-s-color-choice-causes-local-controversy
Ha! My favorite part in good, old-fashioned blame deflection: “However, the city of Roswell said the company – which is new to the area, but has roots in Decatur – was free to choose its color without oversight from the city due to a state law loophole.”
What the city characterizes as “a loophole” is simply the fact that the enabling legislation for local historic districts does not grant them the right to regulate color. Tomato, to-mah-toe, I guess.
You can scoff all you want about NIMBYs, but let me ask you this: How is your neighborhood being affected by this development? Are you going to have increased traffic on your street? Are you going to have to look at a giant parking deck when looking out your back door? Are you going to have to deal with parking issues caused by apartment dwellers using street parking because they are allowed one parking space per apartment? Do you think it’s okay to destroy beautiful decades old trees in the name of profit?
I don’t think most of us have problems with development in Decatur, it’s obvious that it is a smart plan to add more intown housing. But the sleazy manner in which this was pulled off by the city and the greediness of the developer to cram as many apartments as possible in a limited space leaves a bad taste in many Decatur resident’s mouths.
So if it does not affect you, I suggest you MYOB.
Dude – you’re way off – this impacts us all. I want more development in the downtown core because it’s good for our city, and our society, in a number of ways. You chose to live in the downtown core, next to a high rise, next to high density zoning, and now you’re trying to stop high density development? No one is trying to shove a high-rise on land zoned for single family homes. I have to look at all sorts of stuff out my back door, but until I save that last $mil to buy out all my neighbors, I’m going to have to deal with my view. And it may change dramatically tomorrow, but all I can do is keep saving.
To say that this issue doesn’t impact me is just wrong. I think that a) if I live in Decatur, then I get to have a say in how our town progresses, b) no one is going to develop anything without the ability to make a profit, c) I love trees, and we will save many, many, many of them when we build in our urban cores and stop tearing up rural habitats to build sprawl.
+1 to everything Warren said.
WB, I deeply admire and appreciate both your clarity of expression and tirelessness.
+1 to the +1!
However, I feel the need to point out that we’ve been duped. This is not actually Warren Buffet. I know for a fact that the real Warren Buffet has never uttered the word “dude”, let alone would he think to write it!
Don’t destroy my fantasy.
You have fantasies about Warren Buffet?!?
She’d like to get drunk and you know what him.
BOOOOOO! No, not THOSE kinds of fantasies! The fantasy whereof I spoke was one in which our Warren Buffett is actually the real Mr. B (who’s finding Decatur & its goings-on so interesting that he deigns to chime in personally).
Y’all just bein’ NAS-tay!
one of the houses on Fairview behind the proposed new development caught my eye when it was on the market. It has a fantastic huge family room in the back that I covet, not to mention crawling distance to Tacqueria. But my analysis of the place also factored in a) the taqueria parking overflow and b) the upcoming redevelopment of that high rise property. Even though the current redevelopment plans weren’t public at the time, I knew redevelopment there was coming once the economy picked up enough to get it going again, and didn’t like not knowing exactly what would be back there, so i put the listing out of mind. I feel for the recent purchaser, who may or may not have known about the prior development plans, but it is zoned high density, and their realtor at the very least should have told them about possible redevelopment in their back yard.
re those neighbors, and neighbors in other areas with exanding commercial and density next to single family zoning, push the city to re-examine neighborhood parking permits. I’ve lived in cities where those are very effective to limit overflow parking from apts/popular businesses, as long as enforcement is strict. I raised the issue during the first discussions of that redevelopment back in the mid 2000s, and the City wasn’t ready to go there it didn’t seem, but maybe now with 3-4 of these types of projects on the horizons, it would be a viable option to mitigate some impacts of the increasing density on the neighboring existing housing. Even though I don’t live in an area that would need the permitting, I’m happy to support any of those neighborhoods that want to push for it.
I am NOT agreeing with NIMBY. I think the development affects everyone and everyone who lives in Decatur has a right to a voice. He has zero right to stifle those voices.
However, a friend of mine nearly put an offer on that same house and changed her mind due to the same issues you bring up.
The effect of these developments on surrounding neighborhoods does need to be considered but it is not the only factor in determining whether this is right for the city as a whole.
Barry Street was afforded neighborhood parking permits, however, the City refused to enforce. My friends, tired of E Howard restaurant patrons blocking their driveway and staging their cars half in the street/half on their lawn (the street is narrow), and getting NO helpful response from the City, moved to “Atlanta in DeKalb”. Perhaps the City gov has matured in the last few years and will see the value of parking permit enforcement in the neighborhoods around 315.
I tried to get parking permits for my street since over the half the houses have inadequate to no off street parking. Patti Garrett told me they were pretty impossible to enforce. Neighbors start calling police on guests of other residents (which are allowable), for example, and we simply don’t have enough police to adequately enforce these permits. I do know police quickly enforce other illegal parking.
Funny you should mention it, macarolina, because we’re the ones you’re feeling for.
You’ll be happy to know that we went into the purchase with clear eyes. We’ve lived on Ponce Court for seven years and were well aware of the 2008 development debacle and the ongoing potential for development of that lot. I specifically broached it with our realtor, who blithely pooh-poohed the notion (“Oh, they nipped that in the bud. Nothing will go in there!”) as he was already counting his commission. We knew better, and were okay with it, though I will say we didn’t expect it to come quite so soon! We’re doing some renovation on the the ground floor and finishing out the attic, and the day that work began was when we got notice about the apartment complex.
Once negotiations began with Carter, the developer, we were wary but supportive. It’s a huge field of asphalt after all, and development — done the right way — would be good for the city, as WB has articulated. Plus, they were more or less in compliance with the recently updated code, so it’s not like we had much ability to stop it. We figured our best bet was to work with them to achieve as amenable an arrangement as possible. Honestly, all we were thinking at that point was landscaping in the buffer and trying to save the dawn redwoods on the other side.
Perhaps because of that initial compliance, we got steamrolled a bit by the developer and some of the neighbors on Montgomery who, after being the epicenter of the resistance in 2008 formed tight, vocal ranks again, making sure their needs were met with only passing concern about Fairview and the 335 condos. They got the initial building height lowered to three stories (after it was already lowered to four stories initially) on their side with stepbacks, courtyards, and more neighborhood-friendly facades with street-level units. We got bupkiss. So in the second meeting we let our displeasure be known and to Carter’s (specifically Conor McNally, who lives in Decatur) credit, they took that seriously. Conor went back and got a fourth/fifth floor stepback for us on the Fairview side as well and worked with us privately to assuage our fears about landscaping, sight lines, etc. We’ve reached a point now where we are comfortable with what will be going in behind us and are still very excited about our new home (including that big family room).
I know I’ve taken hard lines on this issue, but I do it mean it when I say that it sounds like you are approaching this with as positive an attitude and open mind as possible and I’m glad to hear you “are comfortable with what will be going in behind us and are still very excited about our new home.” I didn’t realize there were schisms among the various streets regarding desired outcomes. That’s interesting.
I’m really glad to hear this. I don’t think anyone of serious consideration was under the delusion that our new zoning regs and process associated with multifamily/single family adjacency would be conflict-free. However, there was a hope that, at the end of the day, it would be more productive than what occurs at heavily attended commission meetings with up/down votes and this seems to indicate that that’s been the case.
The ideal scenario is all sides working together in respectful acknowledgement of each’s rights and preferences, to a mutual conclusion where everyone of reasonable mind is satisfied that their interests were acknowledged and in some way served. Of course, lump seems to be of reasonable mind, so his perspective may not exist in all circles…
If I understand correctly at least one member of the development team is a Decatur resident, who would have little to gain through anything characterized as greedy or sleazy.
Also you use the term apartment dwellers in a derogatory manner. So when the developer wants to make money he’s greedy, but when you look down on apartment dwellers you’re a great guy? And what do you suppose happened to the trees that were on your lot before your house was built?
Umm, nowhere did I disparage apartment dwellers. I did not say that there should be no development. There should be SMART development. Increasing intown living is a good thing. Profit is fine, but it should not be to the detriment of our lovely city.
Warren, you may be affected, but it _appears_ that you will not have to directly deal with all of the problems brought on by poor planning. There are better ways this could have been done. And I still question the appropriateness of decisions made last December by the city. Oh, and by the way… how many of you know what our former mayor’s job description is now?
And Warren: I am not a ‘dude’.
Ok, Lebowski, but you’re still way off. I am affected every day when I walk by, on the sidewalks I help pay for, and have to look at that eyesore of a parking lot. And I’m also impacted every time I pay high taxes, when they could be lower expect that our downtown properties are underutilized. As for previous decisions, thankfully we have elections to vote dem bums out. And an insinuation of some sort of conspiracy regarding the former mayor: you’re going to have to take that up with the nihilists.
Just once, I’d like to hear someone opposed to the 315 plan offer specifics about what they’d like to see in its stead, a plan for “SMART” development, that they could live with, that provides for increased residential density at that location. Seriously. What do you want instead?
From what I’ve heard, the answer is essentially something that’s a) well below the existing entitlements afforded by the zoning; and b) unrealistic in terms of land costs associated with the property.
I offer no opinion on the reasonableness of such a position. Only that it’s the basis for the sort of stalemate conflict that’s been dragging on…
That sounds about right.
NIMBY, I’m looking forward to hearing your conspiracy theory about Baskett’s consulting job.
You made a choice to purchase/rent property where you did, as did I – just in another part of COD. There are inherent risks, mine happens to be that I could be pretty darn close to a new light-rail line if it ever comes to fruition…
Raise some capital and buy it yourself or alternatively sell and move if you don’t like it, but calling it sleazy is low-brow.
I think we all agree about the virtues of density. But just remember that all the people who will come here to live in those apartments so they can walk and enjoy the downtown will be bringing cars, which they’ll use on many of those occasions that they’re not walking around the city. When planners talk about the virtues of density, one premise is excellent transit–the ability to get anywhere on public transportation, not just downtown/Buckhead/airport.
Great point, Annie – transit is a key to getting density correct. And we have it! Three transit stops within our four square miles. An embarrassment of transit riches rarely seen in the American South. Therefore, if there was ever a place to do density – this is it. ALL the people living in those apartments will likely NOT have cars. Many, maybe even most, will. But not all. Why should they? They can get anywhere important in Atlanta without owning a car (don’t forget we have zipcar too). We have a growing number of people in Atlanta who live just fine without a combustible engine – these developments will be very attractive to them. One tweak to the next multifamily development – the city should relax the parking requirements.
The most ridiculous argument I have heard the anti-315 crowd make is that there are going to be all of these 1 bedroom apartments inhabited by 2 car households and since a 1 bedroom apartment only gets one parking spot, the surrounding neighborhoods are going to be overrun with “apartment dwellers” parking on their street. There are a couple of things to be said about this:
(1) Unless there are restrictions, people are allowed to park on a public street. On my street, for example, most of us park on the street because there are no driveways. It’s part of living in the city. You do not own the street in front of your house.
(2) I think it is more likely that if 2 people are living in a 1 bedroom apartment, they only have 1 car .. if they have a car at all. I’ve read certain studies that a large percentage of people under 30 are choosing not to own a car. Not just out of economic necessity, but out of choice. They are relying more on public transportation, car sharing, living within walking distance to work, etc. It’s a lifestyle choice. If you make that choice, where better to live than Decatur? A place well served by transit, zip cars, etc.
I realize that the car obsessed baby boomer generation cannot get their minds around but it is true, nonetheless.
Is there any information about the number of residents of Decatur without a personal automobile? I know several who live in Decatur because that choice is possible.
It’s in the city survey I believe.
I’ve expanded on the Mayor’s comments in the final bullet a bit more so that they are more in context with his full statement.
I just really wish we could have some setbacks so the streets don’t turn into canyons. Also, since a lot of the buildings seem to have quality issues perhaps some building codes that restrict stucco on commercial building the way it is on residential.
I’ve also been reading lately the Richard Florida model has been running into some problems lately. As in developers have been using it to foist one solution fits all buildings on every community.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/20/richard-florida-concedes-the-limits-of-the-creative-class.html
I think we are far from canyons. We do have an 85 ft. limit on buildings – which I think is good. I don’t know if we can restrict stucco, but maybe that’s a good idea. As for Richard Florida – he’s been a great promoter of his ideas and I’m not saying he’s always 100% right. But here’s what I’ll say about his recent “problems.” The guy – Joel Kotkin – who is questioning him, is a urban contrarian/sprawl-appologist who has made a living doing little but disputing everything that Florida and a few others say. I think it’s fine that he’s around to keep us all on our toes, but just because he says it, doesn’t make it right, in fact, it’s usually the opposite. Furthermore, we have proof of Florida’s correctness right in our downtown. Go ask the computer gaming company in the other office building with a Wells Fargo sign on top why they landed in Decatur. It’s the urban vitality and “charm” that attracted them out of their former digs in an old strip center to our fair burg. They brought 200-300 (if memory serves) high-paying jobs here – pretty good economic development in the R. Florida model. So while Kotkin quibbles with Florida, Florida’s ideas are winning out, right here. So believe what you will.
I too would like to see quality amped up. I don’t know if we’ve got the political will to restrict stucco applications (though the city pushes hard, I believe, to prevent EIFS) but perhaps all is not lost. Maybe, in the hard lessons of the Artisan and Renaissance, developers of subsequent projects will recognize, through amped up quality, opportunities to a) gain a competitive marketing advantage; and b) prevent future litigation. Time will tell, I suppose.
As for Florida, saying his strategies are problematic is like saying a hammer is problematic. Sometimes it is (like, when you’ve got a screw) and sometimes it isn’t. There are people misapplying his insights, expecting them to solve everything, and that is a problem. But the ideas themselves have a lot of merit, so long as the context is appropriate.
Does anyone know the technical details about what was/is wrong with those buildings?
My understanding is that it wasn’t the stucco panelling system materials themselves but faulty installation. I may be wrong on that, though.
Any “system” that isn’t real and maintained stucco tends to have problems over time. Like much of our current construction – not just here but everywhere- it a cheap shortcut to achieve a “look” that causes problems over time.
I don’t disagree with that. I was just answering DM’s question. As I heard it, liability in the Artisan’s case fell to the installer, not the product manufacturer. But if anyone knows otherwise, please chime in.
I wasn’t arguing with you! Just making a statement.
I wasn’t turning a cold shoulder to debate! I was introducing relevant facts!
I thought you thought I was being mean to you! I NEED MORE SMILIES!
All caps? Why are you being so angry?!
WAHHHHH!
I can’t tell whether you two are dry-witted or simply caffeine deprived.
I’ll go with witty.
During the recent campaign, Greg Coleson mentioned a green building ordinance as a potential way to ensure quality of buildings. That would have been an interesting topic to actually “debate.” I wonder if a) a green building ordinance would be effective and b) would have a chance to get passed around here?
I’m really talking about the developers interpretation of his ideas to build cheap cookie cutter buildings in the name of density uber alles. Not his ideas in general.
The densest city in America, New York also has the worst rat problem so it’s not a complete panacea. At least to my eyes.
I could really get behind a green building ordinance. It would be a great investment
in the future and a symbol of the progressive approach of our community. Walking the walk!
I would be interested to learn more about what a green building ordinance might entail and how that would/could translate into quality. (We’re talking about quality of materials and quality of construction, right?) If anybody has links, I will happily read up (as long as it’s not TOO technical, arcane or otherwise boring).
The most important part of a green ordinance would be to include a green space requirement (e.g. 20%) The expense of additional green space could be partially offset with green infrastructure. Greenspace credit would be given for green roofs, rain gardens, proper tree planting, above ground retention, and swales. There would need to be a mechanism to exchange greenspace for density that would be inversely related. This would give neighbors and other stakeholders a chip on table to exchange setbacks and green space % for density. Under the current ordinance we are simply exchanging parking lots for buildings, both are impervious. Also with more people comes the need for more greenspace, so we are asking the developers to help subsidize this need, similar to the way the contribute to stormwater infrastructure. Most importantly, it would give a position to negotiate with developer opposed to the current approach, well it meets code, live with it.
treesrock – wouldn’t you agree that not everywhere is appropriate for greenspace? That is, shouldn’t it be ok to build out our urban core, if we can figure out how to preserve more green on the edges? I’m concerned with your concerned for the imperviousness of buildings. They may allow the same amount of water into the ground as a parking lot, but a building’s potential economic benefits allow for opportunities to have greenspace in the appropriate places. We can’t have a park on every block. If we did, where would we live and work? And, no, we aren’t going to live and work in the trees – then we’ve become gorillas. Are you familiar with the concept of the urban transect? Everything has a place, when we try to put building where greenspace should be and greenspace where buildings should be, then we run into trouble. But, at the same time, we aren’t talking about the stringent auto-dependent zoning that we’ve gotten comfortable with over the past 60-80 years.
The idea is to create an oasis in the desert of cement. Ideally they are in dense areas breaking up the contiguousness of cement providing opportunites for water to naturally filtrate.and absorb (in addition to transpire if a tree). It can even be on the roof of the buiding. The green infrasturcture contributes from a human health angle and should be positioned for maximum exposure opposed to the edges (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/easing-brain-fatigue-with-a-walk-in-the-park/). Chattanooga, Charlotte are two urban centers in the southeast that are working hard to integrate this concept. Additionally where in downtown Decatur is there nearby greenspace that is walkable. The only place that comes to mind is the park accrooss the post office (privately owned) and the mini park in front of 315 which is being replaced with retail. Yes, most of us do not work in trees (I am an arborist) but we evolve from trees and they have been demonstrated to be a great long term investment as is other green infrastructure for community economic development and human health.
“where in downtown Decatur is there nearby greenspace that is walkable.” — Adair Park and the Cemetery and depending on how far your definition of “walkable” extends, Glenlake Park, Mead Road Park, Oakhurst Park.
Not to mention The Square.
I wonder how many and/or to what degree the existing construction stock (single and multi-family housing, commercial buildings, etc.) would comply with such a new ordinance.
Residential zoning meets this creatia 100% as they have a 40-50% lot coverage maximum.
I live in the Decatur Renaissance. Our problems starts with inspections being passed, bad installation of stucco, windows, and dryer vents to outside. We even have to repair parking deck because of improper changes made during development of building. It is my understanding when the City was approached about the issue they were told all places have problems. My question! Why didn’t their so called Inspector catch these problem? They took no responsibility. These problems would have been caught in the building process. Two holes cut where and outside dryer vent goes allowing water to come in causing water damage in the walls. Excessive water damage around windows due to incorrect installation, balconys have to be repaired. Homeowners have to repair their own windows and water damage to walls. It is a mess. Would not recommend stucco for anything in Decatur. Don’t SUE !!!!!!! Just get work done before problem gets worse and cost even more to fix.
I feel your pain Rufus. That is very sad and costly for the owners. But, you have a false understanding of the responsibility and capability of the City inspectors. The responsibility lies with the contractors and/or architect., who by law are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the public. You can’t expect the inspector to catch all design or construction flaws and to be more knowledgeable than the professionals who are licensed by the State. Every condo buyer should hire an architect or specialist to review the drawings and inspect the building before they buy. I hope the outcome is favorable to you.
My understanding is that Georgia is a “buyer beware” state. That knowledge isn’t too helpful to those of us who are ignorant about construction and not handy. You can hire your own private inspector but even that has some limitations. Some go overboard and find so many minor issues that you are overwhelmed. Some seem to be mostly interested in helping realtors. And none of this is too helpful to folks who want to buy a condo in buildings that are too late to change. There’s not that many choices to be picky about in Decatur.
The engineers that were hired advised us that some problems would have been caught during each stage of inspection. These were internal findings discovered when they took sections off to see exact extent of water damage. Contractor was absolutely to blame but Inspectors passed things that should not have been. You would have to have been involved in the years of litigation to get the complete story and everyone pointing fingers at each other. These problems started showing up the year they were built 2005.
My point precisely. See above comments. People! Do not by units in buildings using stucco period!