The City Attorney’s Office now says that FDDs are actually “home improvements” that “benefit both the property and the owner.”
The CA’s Office is defending the FDDP and FDDs in writing again. The recent statement is part of an argument to the CAC that the burden of an FDD on the owner is minimal.
The statements come in recent memos from the City Attorney’s Office to the CAC for the FDDP Effectiveness Study, which is still ongoing.
Is your FDD (or your neighbor’s) a “home improvement”? Leave us a comment.
I have now had three incidents of water problems directly related to the sump pump that never happened before this installation. I just had to replace the sump pump, which failed (and turned out to be discerned as a “piece of crap” as said by my contractor who pulled it out) after having to deal once again with flooding in my basement. When all was said and done, this latest wet basement incident cost me another $650 for new pump, labor and blowers. I am beyond annoyed at the frustration and cost this ‘project’ has caused. I feel that [the City-approved FDDP contractor] completely took advantage and installed an incredibly inferior piece of equipment AND they convinced me, and the project director, that I needed to spend the additional $700 at installation for the backup battery which served zero purpose before it malfunctioned and died. GOOD FREAKING GRIEF.
In 2012, the City sent out a Five-Year Post-Installation Survey Questionnaire to a group of homeowners who had FDDs under the FDDP. A lot of the Survey was a sort of customer satisfaction survey concerning how satisfied or dissatisfied the homeowner was with the FDDP contractor, with the actual construction and installation for the FDD, etc.
At the end of the Survey, however, there was a garden-variety open-ended question just asking for any remarks people wanted to add about their experiences as homeowners with involuntary FDDs. The overall Survey response rate was so poor that the Survey was not deemed statistically valid.
On the other hand, 92 people responded to the Survey, which is a lot of people with FDD’s. Many of them also answered the “open-ended” question with now-increasingly familiar complaints about their FDDs, including complaints about flooding and the expense of operation and maintenance of the FDD installations.
We are just going to start posting these complaints from the 2012 survey (which were all anonymous) in a numbered series. We think these comments are among the most important data we have about the last 12 years of the FDDP because they are collectively a report on how well many of the people with FDDs were reacting to them, as homeowners and human beings, as of 2012. In truth, they weren’t reacting very well, which resulted in exactly NO CHANGE in the City’s pursuit of the FDDP. That is hard for us to understand.
With your permission, we’ll also post comments you send us at email@example.com.
The comments of these owners (and others to come, I am sure) frame quite clearly a big-picture question that we’ve wondered about for a while, namely, whether the problem of the FDDP (and perhaps FDDs in general), as an engineering idea (effective or not effective), is that it can’t be implemented in practice inside people’s homes. You have to violate the law at a very fundamental level to do it, in the first instance, and it also imposes an unfair, unyielding and unacceptable allocation of known risks and burdens (including, it has to be said, of physical labor) onto a small percentage of the City’s homeowners, specifically for the benefit of other residents.