1115 HOYT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

.� � � i� �s ��- March 31 , 1992 �� y �0 �`ll � APR _ � 19g2 � ........... Tim T}�1er C/j'Y.'OF..................... Building Official/Building p F� City of Evezett Public Works �b�� Wo�h,s pRET]'��"' 3206 Cedaz Street Pt. Everett, WA 98201 Dear Mr. Tyler: My apologies for the delay in response to yo�r letter oE a couple of weeks ago. We have been very busy with a variety of tasks ar.d obligations which have zequired our pcesence out of town and kept us quite tied up while in town, too. It was with a certain amount of pleasure that we tead your lettet containing a decidedly pteferable tone and demeanot to that used in previous correspondence emanating from your depactment from another city employee. Your letter was notable in that it did not contain abtasive language, lies , inuendo, and outright threats based on the fotegoing lies as has been occurring in previous communications from the other letter writer. We never had ary intention of NOT doing things properly . . . as time and mon v permit. We have beer� in process of doing the MOSTLY cosme,.ic improvements to the place as time and dollars permit. It becomes quite disconcerting, discouraging, and anger inducing when a pexson has been ordered by her superiors to never set foot on our property again, due to a previous set of similar circumstances. In that situation her accusations (sent o�t: without hec boss ' permission ovec tais signature) wete proven (by the city itself) to be deliberate lies levied against us and the other building with no basis whatsoever in fact. She was ordered to never set foot on ANY of out property again, both by us, and by her boss in the city. I zealize you don' t want to get into personalities ot have to even deal with this type of an issue, but it is coming to the point where a lawsuit of giant pzoportions is going to hit the city because of the actions of this one employee who is abusiny a position of authotity and ignoring both direct instxuctions from a superior and is ignoring the truth. I have had more than one inspection perfocmed by profession- als telating to the items indicated by your employee. In none of the items about the main structure at 1115 Hoyt were they in agreement with her . We have done a great deal already which was not necessary to the integrity of the structure, but because we wanted the esthetic imptovement. The fact that your employee had the water shut off WHILE THE BUILDING WAS LEGALLY OCCUPIED BY A RENT PAYING TENANT, and then poated it foc no occupancy bas�d on trumped up ��.�.s� �v�