Arkansas City will not be the focus now, but we can still talk about the town. For now the blog is a blog in search of an identity. Considering what the new niche will be.
Did the contractor who screwed several people out of their money and never did any work actually have a license to operate in the city?
If not, why was he not stopped before taking so many people's money?
If so, wasn't the whole idea behind being licensed by the city to have reputable businesses and not fly by night crooks? And if he was licensed by the city, does the city share any blame for these people being ripped off because they approved of his business and let him conduct business as a reputable company in AC? After all, if the city leadership says he's a good reputable contractor, why would the common citizen question that?
That would be an interesting question for a court to decide. What if the people put together a class action suit against the city. Would make for an interesting case.
He had an employee who had a license, and that by default gave him a license. When that employee resigned and took his name off the license, he suddenly did not have a license anymore. He asked to have it reinsated and was turned down, which is what he was appealing.
The intent of the law was to protect against people like this, but people do need to file complaints quicker. People will now have to go to civil court to try to collect their money.
I think the question is - did the City prevent the contractor who lost his sub/EMPLOYEE with the license from doing any work AFTERWARD which THEN extended the time of inactivity for the residents?
Ironically, there were technical difficulties on ch. 7, so the city will be unable to replay the video of last nights meeting. The city officials, most assuredly, would NEVER cover up a situation where their faults may be the reason innocent taxpaying citizens have lost money following the leadership at city hall!!
Actually, they did a good job of grilling the guy. The law did what it was supposed to do, he will never work in ac again. I would think commissioners would want this one shown. But some people will be negative no matter what.
It is. There is a difference between asking a question and making an accusation. You need to show up at meetings and as questions. That would be great if people would do that. It would get some questions out in the open and talked about more.
So, help me understand this correctly.
ReplyDeleteDid the contractor who screwed several people out of their money and never did any work actually have a license to operate in the city?
If not, why was he not stopped before taking so many people's money?
If so, wasn't the whole idea behind being licensed by the city to have reputable businesses and not fly by night crooks? And if he was licensed by the city, does the city share any blame for these people being ripped off because they approved of his business and let him conduct business as a reputable company in AC? After all, if the city leadership says he's a good reputable contractor, why would the common citizen question that?
That would be an interesting question for a court to decide. What if the people put together a class action suit against the city. Would make for an interesting case.
ReplyDeleteHe had an employee who had a license, and that by default gave him a license. When that employee resigned and took his name off the license, he suddenly did not have a license anymore. He asked to have it reinsated and was turned down, which is what he was appealing.
The intent of the law was to protect against people like this, but people do need to file complaints quicker.
People will now have to go to civil court to try to collect their money.
Well, if the city vouched for this company, and then the company screwed over a bunch of people, I'm thinking the city might share some liability.
ReplyDeleteI bet they didn't think that through when they came up with the money grubbing scheme to license local contractors.
I think the question is - did the City prevent the contractor who lost his sub/EMPLOYEE with the license from doing any work AFTERWARD which THEN extended the time of inactivity for the residents?
ReplyDeleteIronically, there were technical difficulties on ch. 7, so the city will be unable to replay the video of last nights meeting. The city officials, most assuredly, would NEVER cover up a situation where their faults may be the reason innocent taxpaying citizens have lost money following the leadership at city hall!!
ReplyDeleteActually, they did a good job of grilling the guy. The law did what it was supposed to do, he will never work in ac again.
ReplyDeleteI would think commissioners would want this one shown.
But some people will be negative no matter what.
JJ...
ReplyDeleteIs it not our responsibility to ask a lot of questions nice or not??? To stay informed as much as we can?
It is. There is a difference between asking a question and making an accusation.
ReplyDeleteYou need to show up at meetings and as questions. That would be great if people would do that. It would get some questions out in the open and talked about more.