Oof...

Unfortunately if the original estimate was $65k, seemingly absurdly overpriced, there was likely some fowl play at work. (City personal chooses their buddy as the stair contractor and in return, the contractor takes the city person on a "free" trip to the bahamas.

@interesting You're making the assumption they didn't do just that and had to remove them anyway because it failed to pass code. Stairs have quite a few codes they have to meet and external stairs more so, hillside access has its own codes all of which has to be met or you can't build/it has to removed.

Nope, I didnt make that assumption. My response was directly towards Strongsad's question.

His question was whose responsible for injuries? While not answering the question you postulated that they could have green lighted it if it was inspected by a licensed inspector and the appropriate filing was done. That still makes an assumption that it would have passed. If a licensed inspector did inspect it and it failed what would the city do? They'd tear it down. It would only be petty/malicious if it passed inspection and they tore it down anyway. To answer his question, the city. The city may then fine the builder and make them pay for the removal and possibly the medical fees but the city would still be held liable for the injuries.

Incorrect. He stated why he thought the city might have done it, I stated all they would have needed to do for it to be legal. Neither his question nor my response postulated a failure, nor does that dissuade from the fact that locals reported thinking it was petty/possibly malicious. I'm not sure why you're coming so hard at this or what I did to personally offend you? This seems like a really odd hill for you to die on but go for it I guess.

I think you may have read his question wrong then and I'm not attacking you. Just pointed out what was logical fallacy and then responded when it appeared you didn't understand. Now your response makes more sense when you take the question out of the picture. When I read his post his question, to quote, "If some Yahoo built the stairs wrong and resulted in injuries who would be responsible? " was what I thought you were trying to answer. I may actually be bored which is why I'm responding but it doesn't change the truth of anything I've said.

Hey folks! It's all good...my whole point was that we probably don't know the entire story and I was just thinking of a valid reason to have the stairs removed.

I dont know how many people currently on FS are going to know off the top of their heads what was posted 2 years ago.... but kudos mate.

if its more than even a couple months its not a repost anymore by the standards the vast majority of the community.

A repost is a repost. It may be new to you personally but that doesn't change the fact it's a repost. For years this wasn't such a big deal on this site but it seems in the last 4 or 5 months there's been a huge uptick in reposting older posts. Some from as far back as 2012, at least from what I've been able to track down. It's like someone is going through post from years ago and just reposting them.

cool story, no one else cares

A repost is it? Boy, oh boy you probably don't know how things work around these parts.