Hostel Detroit hit with safety citation.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 07:17 AM

http://detnews.com/article/20110926/...sunderstanding

Let's hope this gets worked out quickly.

**Lowell** · September-26-11, 08:51 AM

It lacked manual fire alarms, a fire detection system, sprinkler system, exit signs and emergency lighting.

LOL, sounds like every hostel I stayed at in Europe and Israel back in the day.

I'm not making light of the infraction, however it begs the questions of why we have not heard of Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Department infractions being issued against the nearby MCD.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

LOL, sounds like every hostel I stayed at in Europe and Israel back in the day.

I'm not making light of the infraction, however it begs the questions of why we have not heard of Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Department infractions being issued against the nearby MCD.

There are different standards between vacant and occupied buildings. Although there are plenty of violations that vacant buildings can get hit with that they aren't getting hit with. I say go to town on the Packard Plant. That has to be one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous, buildings in the City

**Detroitnerd** · September-26-11, 09:05 AM

I would have to say that, from what I hear, this is how it works. Instead of one single office [[I believe this is how it's done in other cities) that people go to to find out what must be done, you have to consult with various Detroit offices, some more responsive than others, and then wait for the inspector to come by and tell you what you did wrong/didn't do.

**Lowell** · September-26-11, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

There are different standards between vacant and occupied buildings. Although there are plenty of violations that vacant buildings can get hit with that they aren't getting hit with. I say go to town on the Packard Plant. That has to be one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous, buildings in the City

Yes, I agree with the apples and oranges on occupancy, but the condition of the MCD has been a decades long situation during which it has been rented out for movie sets, having kids clean it up and other temporary occupancy situations. Does anyone know how one would find out if any violations have ever been issued against the MCD?

As for going after the Packard first, I disagree. The MCD is far more highly visible blight. It is the first thing seen when entering the US from the bridge. It is located adjacent to a vibrant neighborhood. Its high profile should give it first attention, its ownership is clear and its ownership has the money.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Yes, I agree with the apples and oranges on occupancy, but the condition of the MCD has been a decades long situation during which it has been rented out for movie sets, having kids clean it up and other temporary occupancy situations. Does anyone know how one would find out if any violations have ever been issued against the MCD?

As for going after the Packard first, I disagree. The MCD is far more highly visible blight. It is the first thing seen when entering the US from the bridge. It is located adjacent to a vibrant neighborhood. Its high profile should give it first attention, its ownership is clear and its ownership has the money.

Check with B&SE and the DAH about violations. If you have the exact address or the correct property owner, you can check with the DAH's website. I have to disagree with you about the MCD vs Packard Plant. Forget the imagery of it, the Packard Plant is a flat out more dangerous building with debris that can fall at any moment and multiple fires always happening. There have been more incidents at the Packard Plant and it stretches through a residential neighborhood. Whereas the MCD is more isolated. Of course, the DIBC is a lot easier to get in contact with than whoever is the owner of the Packard Plant.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I would have to say that, from what I hear, this is how it works. Instead of one single office [[I believe this is how it's done in other cities) that people go to to find out what must be done, you have to consult with various Detroit offices, some more responsive than others, and then wait for the inspector to come by and tell you what you did wrong/didn't do.

You just got a hole-in-one. That seems to be the case. When the Director of the department that handles the inspections makes the statement that everything is fine. Why would anyone else think otherwise?

**bailey** · September-26-11, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

You just got a hole-in-one. That seems to be the case. When the Director of the department that handles the inspections makes the statement that everything is fine. Why would anyone else think otherwise?

Because on August 30th the inspector told her to shut down the Hostel portion of the building. That was well after the opening where the director made the comments.

An inspector returned Aug. 30, found corrections ordered earlier weren't made and warned staffers to stop operating. He issued a misdemeanor ticket Tuesday.

Look, "confusion" or not, she ignored the order to shut down the Hostel part. And let's not ignore what the citiation was for. It's not like there were no label on the bathrooms.

It lacked manual fire alarms, a fire detection system, sprinkler system, exit signs and emergency lighting.

It would appear there is a near total absence of fire safety systems. Not exactly a nit picky detail and I'd would think that if any of the usual slumlords had the same violation, there would be a lot less forgiveness here. Frankly, regardless what is code, I'd question what seems to be a clear lack of concern about guest or apartment tenant safety.

**corktownyuppie** · September-26-11, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Frankly, regardless what is code, I'd question what seems to be a clear lack of concern about guest or apartment tenant safety.

I agree with your sentiment but would stop short of the above statement. The whole point is that long-term apartments don't have a need for sprinkler system, fire detection, and exit signs.

It seems strange that one building would have two sets of requirements for the different sections....[[this is an apartment, no sprinklers necessary...the identical room on the floor below is a hostel...sprinklers and alarms, please)

But I guess it does follow common sense that the long-term apartment tenants would be familiar with how to exit the property in case of a fire, where the 24-hour guest might need the exit signs to know how to get out.

In any case, I can see why the whole thing is confusing and only worsened if the city officials are giving them contradictory information. In any case, it appears that this whole thing will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Hardly slumlord material.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Because on August 30th the inspector told her to shut down the Hostel portion of the building. That was well after the opening where the director made the comments.
Look, "confusion" or not, she ignored the order to shut down the Hostel part. And let's not ignore what the citiation was for. It's not like there were no label on the bathrooms.

It would appear there is a near total absence of fire safety systems. Not exactly a nit picky detail and I'd would think that if any of the usual slumlords had the same violation, there would be a lot less forgiveness here. Frankly, regardless what is code, I'd question what seems to be a clear lack of concern about guest or apartment tenant safety.

But you have to bear in mind that all of these issues were the same when the Director made her statements. If all this was the case then perhaps they shouldn't have been allowed to open.

The city showed up for the photo-op and blew smoke and then they pulled the rug out from under the Hostel. If the City is going to do things the right way, it should be with all things all the time.

**preserve** · September-26-11, 03:49 PM

Nothing changes. Too many chiefs and no one minding the Indians. Try selling a house in Detroit. One set of inspectors finds things wrong, gives you a list. You make the necessary corrections, apply for another inspection, second inspector finds other things, you make the necessary corrections and apply for another inspection, 3rd inspector finds other things and so on and so on. No sense of what's right and what's wrong and where to turn. This city is not user friendly. People in the permit departments are there because their other jobs were eliminated and they don't have a clue, so they hmmm and haw and
delay everything. Push decision making all around the room. I feel for the owner of the Hostel. Hope it finally gets the okay and the silly little badges go find something else to nit pick.

**1953** · September-26-11, 03:50 PM

I hope this gets resolved quickly, because Emily is too cute for prison.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-26-11, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by 1953

I hope this gets resolved quickly, because Emily is too cute for prison.

She does look really cute.

And more to the point, the article was very positive. There have been some bumps in the road, and the city's working with her to resolve them. I see a lot to like in the city's attitude on this.

**Richard** · September-26-11, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Check with B&SE and the DAH about violations. If you have the exact address or the correct property owner, you can check with the DAH's website. I have to disagree with you about the MCD vs Packard Plant. Forget the imagery of it, the Packard Plant is a flat out more dangerous building with debris that can fall at any moment and multiple fires always happening. There have been more incidents at the Packard Plant and it stretches through a residential neighborhood. Whereas the MCD is more isolated. Of course, the DIBC is a lot easier to get in contact with than whoever is the owner of the Packard Plant.

Typical of many cities instead of working with people to improve they throw so many obstacles in place, this is tough as a multi use which would be a lot more headache ,both sides are in the wrong one for not doing the research and one for not having a system in place.Usually brown paper in the windows works well as does staying in the grey area.

Packard has a clear ownership its the others involved that are "unknown" but hold more power then the mayor. It is only unsafe to trespassers and those who chose to use it as a playground ,I have yet to see a building start itself on fire.Lets just kinda leave it out of the limelight for the moment.