Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Unfit for Use 1999-12-1 ,. - .,. , .' ,. . . DEPARTMENT OF I-IUMAN RESOURCES Attention: Tom Mitchell Rcf: Casc #99-059 I purchased 2680 Harvest Lane Springfield, Ore. 6/19/99 From David & Tom Rodakowski. At the time I acquired the home it had thoroughly been cleaned and completely vacated. All belongings to previous occupants where removed along with all meth residue. Prior to the time of purchase the house was inhabited by drug users. (see Attachment #1 of the police report you where given on 11/3/99) All evidence gathered by police on April 14, 1999, from the northwest bedroom is that of a drug user, not a drug manufacturer. The police are not the judge and the jury in this argument. Thats why Neilson Research Corporation was retained to assess the condition of the house by the previous owner. Conditions assessed by Neilsons Research Corporation further prove this house was not used to manufacture meth, contradicting your and the Oregon Health Division's statements; And again indicate that this house was occupied by drug users. Neilson Research Corporation 4/30/99, indicated in their report upon initial entry into these premises that: (1) There were no chemical odors detected relating to drug activity. (2) The indoor air quality of the house was evaluated with a micro tip hand held Photo ionization Detector. The detector has a detection level of O.1ppm. Volatile organic compounds were not detected. (3) Police alleged they discovered a clandestine drug lab on April 14 1999, Their own evidence discovery, contradicts what they alleged. There was no lab present or found at this location at any time past or present according to. their own evidence discovery. (4) The area outside the house, (Carport) was inspected for stains or related drug manufacturing, and no sings of activity were found. (5) The bum pile area was inspected visually as well as with the Photo ionization Detector and no signs of illegal dumping were found. I I II ; ~ .. . . (6) Corrosivity sampling was done at each tested hard surface site and the pH results where in the ranges between 6 & 9 which are indicators of a normal household, and would be contradictory to a meth manufacturing location. (7) The Neilson Research Corporation indicates under the heading "Limitations" That their findings are just professional opinions. They futher state their report is not a definitive study of contamination and should not be interpreted as such. Since I was concerned with the safety of the house, I had it tested for drugs on 10/12/99 By Magnum Environmental Inc. (see Attachment #2 which you received on 11/3/99.) Magnum Environmental Inc. had tested the identical locations as previously testcd by Neilson Research Corporation, In the original report, Magnum Environmental Inc. Tcsts concludcd that this housc was safc for habitation. The tests made by Magnum Environmental Inc. were sent to Neilson Research Corporation. AII locations tested on 10/12/99 were within the excepted tolerances per inclosed report I talked to Detective Seanor on November 26, 1999, who made the original police report. He stated after my conversation with him on the lab reports, that he could see no reason why I could not occupy my home. I planned on moving into my home on November 8, 1999. I waited an additional week to hear from you, and you did not respond, so I moved in. Then you finalIy responded three weeks and three day later. I have proof this house is safe for habitation and that proof was sent to you on 11/3/99, in the form of Magnum Environmental Inc. tests results that I had done by the Neilson Research Corporation. You state in your letter dated 1] /23/99 the $900.00 fee I paid to RMCat was for a work plan review I was told by Bob Ransdell of RMCat Enviro, that I needed to send him a down payment of $900,00 to start work, and to make the check payable to the Oregon Health Division. T sent a check for $900.00 on 8/13/99. Two months later RMCat Environmental was stilI a no-show at my . property. So I had other environmental companys come and give me bids. AII said the same thing: "Why does this house need to be cleaned? Anything that was here is now gone, and all the stuff , ;. .. . . has hccn removed". This is when I took matters into my own hands hecause I felt that the people on your list of contractors were irresponsible, because the one I picked was a no-show company who never showed up to do the job I paid them for. When I paid RMCat Environmental $900.00 on 8/13/99 I see now that it was going to the Oregon Health Division for a simple approval of an unnecessary work plan. If I had known this, I would not have paid this at all. So I am still asking for the return of the $900.00. Please refund this money, As I have never recieved any service for this payment. During the time that RMCat did not show up to do the work I thought I paid for, I did my own investigating into the validity of this case #99-059 and found a great many discrepancies in the faclS being described in the police report, the original site . report and what the Oregon Health Division letters of response were saying. Case summary: (1) INET was the judge and the jury in this matter and they're calling this house 2680 Harvest lane Spfld, Ore. a meth manufacturing site which it was not. (2) The police did not discover a drug lab there, or any manufacturing devices, They found drug paraphernalia, which docs not warrant Oregon Health Division involvement. (3) Report dated 4/30/99 By Neilson Research Corporation Proves that this site was not a meth manufacturing location as you earlier stated in your letter, but a house inhabited by drug users as the only signficant detectable levels where found in the personal living areas. Other areas with detectable levels were so low that they most likely caused by foot traffic. (4) I have sent you a report which states this house is within the . exceptable tolerances for habitation and I strongly urge you to recognize it's validity, I feel I am being discriminated against by the Environmental Bureaucracy. If this house 2680 Harvest Lane Spfld, Ore. Is not removed from the Oregon Health Division List of unsafe houses and my $900.00 returned in a prompt matter. You will leave me no choice other then to sue' the Oregon Health Division And INET for damages as well as back rent from 6/19/99 to 11/15/99, as well as property II I I ';' . . . taxes on this property I will allow I business week for your response and then will proceed with suit Thank you Keith Alverson cc: Ron Hall, Oregon Health Division Sergeant Lee Thaming, INET Dave Puent, Springfield Building Department Ii V)~~ 2lP"ilO ~.~~Lr?1 ~.~.-, I\~ ~r~ ~~ ',) .