May 13, 2011

Shorter Capitol damage report

Link to it (.pdf; 6 pgs.):
The primary damage ... appears to be limited to nicks and chips at the corners of Kasota Stone piers on the ground and first floors. ... These sharp corners of soft stone are vulnerable to damage from items such as handbags ... Carts and wheelchairs also contribute to these chips. ...
Then immediately following:
Essentially the building experienced 3-5 years of wear within a two week period of late February and early March, 2011.
Rest assured Journal Communications, Inc.'s marquee personalities will seize on the latter claim.* But there's no support for it throughout the rest of the report and in fact the report's own admission that "primary damage appears limited to nicks and chips on the ground and first floors" completely belies its "3-5 years of wear" claim.

How many years of wear, for example, did the building's roof endure?

And let's hope folks remember why the building was filled to capacity.

* As do, predictably, Scott Walker and Mike Huebsch (.pdf; 2 pgs.).

Messrs. Walker and Huebsch add, for no particular reason:
For instance, during the demonstrations, the building's HVAC system ran nearly non-stop, a volume [sic**] it was not designed for, shortening its useful life.
I worked in construction for 15 years and never once heard of an HVAC system that wasn't designed to run for two weeks. The tin whackers and millwrights I knew must be howling with laughter.

When is the WISGOP going to tire of insulting our intelligence?

** An HVAC system's capacity by volume, obviously, has nothing to do with how long the system is running. Who elected these people?

I bet it wasn't engineers.

13 comments:

gnarlytrombone said...

Looks like a lot of duct tape and rolling stock on and next to that marble...

gnarlytrombone said...

"Other examples of miscellaneous products and services include: ear buds for the officers’ radios because there was too much noise in the building..."

illusory tenant said...

Every jot and tittle.

Anonymous said...

So basically...my understanding after reading the document is that there's wear and tear that can't be specifically attributed to the protests...some of which could go back to other restoration attempts made decades ago and some of which could have been made by visitors before or after the protestors.

In other words, if you start from the presupposition that all protestors against Governor Walker are dirty hippies and students, clearly it's all their fault.

illusory tenant said...

Something like that. I wonder how much less the cost estimate would have been had it been undertaken on February 10, the day before Walker announced he was going to bust up the unions. Probably not all that much less.

John Foust said...

Well, there's a difference between gaffer's tape and duct tape. Gaffer's tape is designed to be removed and not stain.

gnarlytrombone said...

Here's a question for counsel: Why wasn't Huebsch nailed to the wall for contempt of court?

gnarlytrombone said...

Eh, horked my link. Bill Lueder's story has the docs that Huebsch submitted to the court.

illusory tenant said...

Lueders has his numbers transposed, it's $111,750 for the interior stone work.

Anonymous said...

Here's another question. Why is current access to the capitol building still not equivalent to the access of January 2011, as was required by court order? Seems like its time for another motion for contempt.

illusory tenant said...

The Dept. of Admin. would argue (and likely has and is already) that access as of January was lenient by the standards it was empowered to enforce then. In other words, they say they could have been doing what they're doing now back in January.

Ari said...

Re: John Foust's comment,

The protesters were using blue painter's tape, specifically to avoid residue or damage to the marble. The only ones using duct tape were prolly a news crew taping down wires.

Clutch said...

When is the WISGOP going to tire of insulting our intelligence?

When is it going to tire of insulting your intelligence? That would be never.

But you are not the audience at whom their comments are aimed. And for the audience at whom their comments are aimed, the comments are intelligence-matching, not intelligence-insulting.