ShareThis Page
Code complaints languish in city, controller charges |

Code complaints languish in city, controller charges

Jeremy Boren
| Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:00 p.m

Pittsburgh building inspectors fail to address about 16 percent of code violations as quickly as they should, according to an audit released Tuesday by City Controller Michael Lamb.

“They have a number of complaints that are not dealt with in a timely manner, and many of them are serious complaints — fire prevention, unsafe building conditions,” Lamb said.

“They need to better prioritize their actions down there to resolve complaints of a more serious nature in a more timely way.”

Auditors examined the status of 34,303 graffiti, fire prevention, electrical, demolition and other Bureau of Building Inspection complaints filed in 2006 and 2007. Of those, 5,008 went unresolved for an average of nine months.

The figures are from February, so they might be higher or lower now, said Lamb.

The inspection bureau has come under intense scrutiny from top city and state oversight officials this year after Public Safety Director Michael Huss discovered major fire safety violations in two Oakland apartments that housed primarily college students.

The buildings were closed in May until repairs were made, but their broken fire escapes and inoperable fire alarm systems highlighted an apparent lack of follow-through by city building inspectors.

Lamb said his report is simply the latest part of his vow to audit each city department and bureau.

Though the Pittsburgh bureau’s 72 budgeted staff positions are fewer than in other cities such as Buffalo (90), Cincinnati (95), St. Louis (150) and Cleveland (170), Lamb said it should be able to do a better job.

The bureau’s $3.2 million operating budget is smaller than the four other cities’.

Lamb praised the bureau for conducting regular sweeps of blighted neighborhoods, in which inspectors concentrate on houses and businesses spanning a few blocks.

Bureau Chief Sergei C. Matveiev agreed with many of Lamb’s findings in a four-page response letter.

He said automating the department would increase efficiency, as would doubling the budget to demolish condemned buildings.

“A substantial commitment has been made to automate the bureau and reduce the time to process complaints,” said Matveiev, the third person to lead the bureau since Luke Ravenstahl became mayor in September 2006.

Ravenstahl increased demolition funds to $4 million this year, up from $2 million in 2007. Ravenstahl has proposed spending $5 million on demolitions in 2009. That would pay for about 625 demolitions at a cost of $8,000 per demolition, according to Lamb’s audit.

In September, the city purchased 12 wireless, handheld computers at $4,000 apiece for building inspectors to use in the field. The goal is to transmit complaints from the city’s 311 hot line to inspectors instantly in hopes of addressing them more quickly.

After a trial period, more computers might be purchased.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.