Exactly my point dig.......I noticed my last post that pointed a few fingers was deleted....Victoria is a modern day Peyton Place inhabited by Stepford citizens.

So the other family whos home was almost blown up do they also have ties to the city? It is not just about this man, it is the point that the city can blow up your house & is not held responsible. Gee people I hope the city does not blow up your houses, they are on a roll.

You all are so funny. Instead of Bit**ing on the computer, go out and do something good for the community. Help the youth or elderly. Get involved and be positive. You could run for the city council or school board. There are a lot of know it alls on the computer. Take your complaints to the city where they can do something. Who is going to do something on here....do you all need some cheese with your Whine.

I agree with the point you have CG23Sailor of "being up the City's backside". To everyone else who thinks i'm taking the City's side let me say this....If the City is at fault, they should pay and visa versa, if the gas company was at fault, they should pay. I NEVER said that the City shouldn't pay. I'm not a heartless person and I can't imagine what these people are going through. What I did say, is that the City shouldn't be responsible for paying the homeowner $140,000. I just think it is greedy for someone to ask for so much when he should be thankful that the City is doing what they are doing. No, I don't think it is right that the renters got all of that money...they should have had renters insurance. I think the City has been generous in what they have done. I'm not going back on my prior post just trying to clarify my point.

Also VBB, it's funny how many other post have basically said something similar to my post but for some reason because my spouse works for the City you feel the need to focus on my post. I guess if you were the City Attorney, you would just go on and give the owner $140,000.

VBB...I want you to know that my husband takes pride in his job! You can think for all you want that I have a no caring attitude. You have your opinions, just like I have mine. Just know that each day that those City Employees go to work, they go with intentions of doing their job to the best of their ability. They don't go planning on blowing up someones house or letting your house flood when your pipes break and you need your water shut off or leave a big ole pot hole where a water main breaks. Maybe we should appreciate the things that ALL of the City Employees do for us. And BTY, No, my husband does not work in that dept.

Most definately Bighorn! The last line spoke volumes. It matters not where he lives, or how big & expensive his house is. Do you know for a fact what you say is true or are you just assuming?

It stated in the original story after the incident that this couple had acquired this property for an investment. I assume it was paid off so after taxes & insurance the rest was profit. The article also stated that they had recently remodeled so its not as if they were slumlords either.

The renters made out like bandits thanks to David Smith who btw is now collecting 2300.00 for doing pretty much nothing. The mayor has no problems giving him $300.00 more a month than he requested but God forbid he lift a finger to help out this couple whos life the city threw a monkey wrench into.

How much you wanna bet his insurance is dragging their feet considering the circumstances. Until such time this lot is just costing him money.

Ernie....I like your compromise, wish it were viable.

At this point I'm glad I'm not sitting on the jury that would have to decide this. But if I were, and with the scant details we have so far to go on, here's what I'd have to consider:

1. The renter's had no insurance on their belongings. Poor choice on their part but still the incident was not their fault (overloading a circuit for example and burning the house down) nor God's (say if Hurricane Zelda blew the roof off).
2. So who's fault was it? The city's liability has already been hashed out; wrong address, line markings done months in advance of the work, etc. But what about CenterPoint? I agree with Darlins. City code is that utility lines must be buried no less than 48" below grade since '60, NLT 24" previous. If the line was 50 yrs old and still carrying flammable gas, I'd have an issue with that alone but it's still an out-of-code violation. I read though that "a company investigation into the incident revealed it was not at fault..." Oh really. Do tell! They found themselves blameless. Imagine that. Sorry. The line was out of code and they should have known it. Right address or wrong one, this line was in violation. CenterPoint gets some of the liability in my book.
3. I appreciate that Mr. Villafranca doesn't want to sue anyone. Lawyers, after all, are expensive and lawsuits time consuming. On the other side though I'm not sure he's not looking to better his situation in the aftermath. The city appraised the house (and lot) at about $50K. Much to my chagrin the city appraises my property pretty accurately at market value from what I've been able to learn about similar homes in the neighborhood. I assume they did similarly well with his. So....
a. He was underinsured whether by choice or by oversight. I have replacement value insurance on my home, not market value, and it increases automatically every year dependent on market conditions. It appears he got the payment from the insurance that his premium allowed. And...
b. the lot wasn't damaged, it's still his and neither was the garage. His claim that the garage must be rebuilt to match the new house seems a little egregious to me.
4. There are cleanup costs to be considered as well as Mr. V's lost time deal with the incident and to rebuild. These costs should be shouldered by the city and CenterPoint - but if he still feels he has to tear down and rebuild the garage, he's on his own.

The city caps its liability at $100k (per incident I assume). This can have two very different results. First, it protects the city from frivolous suits in which sympathetic juries might award huge settlements, thus protecting the city from bankruptcy which would in turn adversely affect all its citizens. But second, I see where it might make city officials complacent since no incident will cost the city more than the $100K cap. Solution: set "pain and suffering" limits at $100k but any real costs should have no cap.

Verdict: Someone needs to sit down with a calculator and all the claims. Determine Mr. V's *actual* costs to make him whole, including his time and trouble; subtract out the already paid insurance amount and the city and CP split the rest.

Case closed. As Bighorn said - Next!

Ernie

Well I'd say if that was his source of retirement income I will give him the number to my financial advosor!!
Rental property is a gamble....
The home was not in a subdivision....
therefore he should just take the money and run while he is still ahead. You can not fight with the city, county or DA and expect to win. Just had to throw the DA in there!! :)

just me:I believe you just illustrated my point about class warfare, or jealousy. VBB, would you agree?

I would agree with you except for one thing. If my house burned down because of an electrical short, my insurance should pay. If I set a fire in the fireplace and it goes out of control, it was my mistake and that is why I have insurance. To protect me from loss to to accident and my own stupid behavior.
If you come down and burn my house down, you and your insurance should pay. You cause the fire, you pay the tab.I f you can't or wouldn't, or don't have insurance, I will file suit and own YOUR house.
Sounds simple to me.

I have a problem with both the renters and the owners.... The renters, because they did not purchase renter's insurance knowing that if they owned the house, they'd have to have hazard insurance.... Renter's insurance isn't expensive and I see it as  irresponsible for not purchasingit.  They received $51,000.00 for the loss of their belongings and I guess punitative damages... I see that as a lot of money for possessions that probably didn't add up to more than $15,000.00 (Unless a car was damaged, but wouldn't their auto insurance cover that?)The problem I have with the owner is the fact that he was UNDER-insured. He should update his policy each time the renter's lease expired. He was probably not worried about it.... trying to make a profit off the rental property. I really feel that right now, Mr. V is being a bit greedy. The city is willing to pay more than what the owners  insurance policy paid..... he'll be able to re-build a nice home for $90,000.00 and within a month of it's completion will be able to rent it out for double what he was getting from the old house.... As far as him being out any income, this probably isn't his only rental property, so I don't think that he and his family will be starving.... Plus, he will probably get to write it off on his income tax.... As to who was at fault for this, I'm willing to place blame on both Centerpoint and the city. There was incompetency by both and they should jointly bear the responsibility. As to the building permit fees.... well, if this had been the owner's homestead, I'd readily agree that the fees should be waived. However, this was his rental property and yeah, I think he should be responsible for the fees. I think the city has been generous.... but disporportionate in disbursing the funds.

Well done, VBB. Momma, we all make mistakes. The difference is WE PAY FOR OUR MISTAKES. Just as the city should.
As for rental property, the reason the owner had insurance was in the event of an accident happened. And in the state of Texas, if you cause the accident, you pay the cost.

I have never blown up someones house at work. I assume if I did I would get fired.

It matters not how much the appliances cost the owners. It was income for them. Shame on them for planning ahead for retirement & such.
The appraisal district appraises your home for property tax purposes. They are generally lower than market value prices.
Hope the city never blows up your house. Momma, I hope your husband is not in this particular dept as you just don't seem to care and I assume you get that attitude from him.

Amen to justmerighthere's post! Someone who sees my point. Secondly, the value of the home is decided by the apprisal district, not the insurance company. Your homeowners insurance is written for so many dollars per square foot. Sounds like the owners issue if he had it underinsured. Maybe he should have looked at his policy and updated it. As for the comments about the City Employees being careless and never having "anything to do", I am assuming that you Bighorn and VBB are perfect and never have a free second?!

The home alone is valued at $40,170, the land the home sits on is valued at $8,780. That's a lot for a home that is only 780 square feet and is 60 years old. Refrigerator for rent house $500Gas Stove for rent house $400Washer for rent house $350Dryer for rent house $350 I am just guessing that's what one would spend on the rental property. After all it is a Rental Home.... not his homestead !!! I think the owner is being unfair and should just take what he is offered and what he already has. I mean what would he do if there were crackheads living there and they blew up the house making their drugs??!!! He would be stuck. Every owner knows the risks of having rental property.Sometimes you just get screwed over !!!!!Take the money and buy another small house to rent in another neighborhood!!
 
Then go home to your $236 thousand dollar home and fine a nice place to sleep somewhere in your 10 year old 1,935 square foot home !!!!!

Wanna come over to my cave and check my etchings? Figure of speach deal.

Are you saying I live in a cave?

When they blow up your cave, I'll give the name of my Doctor. He knows my Lawyer.
I don't go this type of thing either, but it is such total crap to pay off the renter, and leave the owner to his own insurance. I can assure you, Will Amstrong would not like me much after that kind of BS. I might not get paid for the property, but I would get paid. Good God, treat these people fairly!

LOL...I like the way you think. When the city blows up my house I will hire you as my consultant/advisor!

They should have offered to buy the lot, I thought that at the time, but I guess it is not their problem. They doled out the $$ they think their job is done.

The problem with momma & dude is this...the value of the property was either based on the tax rolls or his insurance policy which was outdated. How many houses do you see for sale in Victoria in that price range? The article states that the city is only liable for $100,000. so what if they would have blown up a house in WoodWay, Country Club or any other neighborhood where they houses are valued at a higher rate? It's not even like the man asked the city to fix something which caused this to happen. The city screwed up & either dug at the wrong place or requested the wrong area to be mapped/marked.

I am usually the first to complain about someone trying to take advantage but not in this case. This man deserves whatever he can get! Pain & suffering, lost hours at work to deal with this mess, etc. The city heaped a whole big mess of problems on him & then turned and walked away & said it's not their problem. He should hire Cole, Easley & Cole to handle this from here on out.

VBB: This is a small case of class warfare that so many enjoy in this country. The renter, being a poor unfortunate soul is more worthy (and more mouthy) than the rich landlord. Never mind that the renter had taken no action (insurance) to protect themselves in the event of loss. The rich landlord had insurance, because of course, they are rich. Therefore their greater loss is of no concern to the public.

Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. The renter was paid off at the expense of the owner (again according to the article regarding the city liability).

My Doctor would tell my Lawyer that I was in severe depression related to my concern for my former tenant, and that I needed a "letter of closure" sent certified mail to the city, the mayor, the city council members, the job supervisor, backhoe operator, shovel engineer, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. I believe they would then be more than happy to pay to rebuild the home. Or better yet buy the lot, pay me what is fair, and send me on nice long vacation to the islands to heal my depression.

Just my thinking, BTW

Momma2...they said the house was valued at 40,000. How old was the house? It is going to cost 95,000 to rebuild the article said & I'm sure the quality of house is not going to compare to what he had. Actually when it first happened they weren't even concerned about the homeowner, the city settled first with the renter (who did not have renters insurance) & they walked away with a nice little chunk of change. If you wish to complain about people taking advantage don't point at ths man who lost income & is still paying property taxes on a house the city blew up. It did state the city was digging in the wrong spot, for those of us who can do the math, city is at fault.

Momma. Read the article. Center Point located the lines at the wrong address because some maroon at the city gave them the wrong address. The worker foreman/supervisor should have recognized this before they began to dig.

Ever see those brightly colored signs along right of ways. Stop and read one sometime. They give out all kinds of information regarding digging and who to contact.

no no no BH

Bighorn you are absolutely correct about the supervisor. How can he still have a job after such a huge blunder? In the mean time this poor man has lost a source of income through absolutely no fault of his own.

Just a heads up residents, whenever you see the city come to your neighborhood & start digging around your house, gather all valuables, pets & loved ones & run for your lives. There was another near blow up the other day. 2 houses in 3 months, they are on a roll. Thats not accidental, that reeks of incompetence.

VBB: Was that directed at me?

Actually, the renter seems to be the one that came out in better shape by "airing out the situation" in the paper. The owner has greater damage in dollars, and has likely chosen the same route.

Can't say as I blame them. I wouldn't have waited this long. I would call my Doctor. He knows my lawyer. City council would have a special meeting to get me off their tails.

I never said that the City didn't do anything wrong. I don't know if they did or didn't. What I did say however, is that it sounds like "it is all about money". I think the City was fair in offering money up front when in the very beginning they didn't know for a fact who was at fault. I praise the City for doing that because many would assume that the City of Victoria was admitting to being fully at fault. I still don't think it is known if the gas company has any responsibility in this incident. Like I said earlier, I just think it is greedy and I think that it is only fair to offer him replacement cost of the property and if replacement cost is $140,000 or so then so be it. But according to the Apprisal District, the house was only valued at $40,000(Don't have the exact amount stated).

Friends & spouses....yeah y'all are completely unbiased.

So you think it is okay that this man has to deal with this mess the city created for him? You people should be ashamed of yourselves. He is an innocent victim of the city. He will also have to purchse permits from the city to rebuild the house the city blew up for him. How is that right?????

Hmm....How about Code Compliance? Three years ago, one neighbor called about another whos swimming pool was an open hole with frogs in it. I happened to notice the squable and the condition of the pool, but tried to steer clear. About two weeks later the offending party had the pool cleaned up. 4 weeks later, I happened to be leaving my house when a plain red Pickup pulled up and a "guy" started looking over several backyard fences. Being a decent sort, I decided to "lurk" on the "lurker" to see what was up. I startled the poor guy, but soon saw his uniform (again the truck was unmarked) and he explained he was checking on the pool complaint. When informed that he was a month late, he defended himself that the call was just a day old. Iasked if this just a follow up, and he said no, this was the first trip from their office. Later that evening, I asked the complaining neighbor when she had first called in. She said about two months before. And to her knowledge this was the first "check" that had been attempted.
You asked for an example. There you have one. Next!
In this particular case, according to the article, the supervisor needs to have his butt run off. If they can't even call the utility with the right address, and then proceed to work at the wrong address even though it is obvious that no lines have been marked, they should be gone. And perhaps have some personal liability. I know in my line of work, both my employer and myself can be held liable for loss in a case of negligence on my part.

Dude, I can't agree with you more. My husband is employed by the City and I also know several other men and women who employeed with them and they do work their butts off. I think ALL of our City workers do a wonderful job! You hit the nail on the head when you posted.

VBB,

I read your comments and could not believe my eyes. I have several friends that work for the city. Please name one emplyee that is sitting around waiting for you to call and give them something to do. Maybe you need to get out and see what the emplyees do everyday to keep you safe, your water running, trash picked up and all the other things they do everyday.

I understand that this incident was not Mr. Villafranca's fault. And, I can't say I wouldn't be upset if this happened to me, yet I understand the insurance aspect. Victorianbybirth, you say he hasn't been compensated when he actually has. He has been paid by his insurance company and the City has offered to pay. The article says that it would take approx $140000.00 to rebuild. Correct me if i'm wrong but you can build a nice 3/2 for around $100000.00. We insure our homes incase there is a loss, no matter what kind and the insurance is to help you to start rebuilding, not necessarly totally rebuild. I mean, my personal opinion is that he should take what is offered and be glad that they don't have to wait for the final results from an investigation.

Let me also add that he is still responsible for keeping up with the taxes to the city on this now worthless piece property that they destroyed!

The city blew up his house. It was not his personal home but an income generating investment. So if the city blew up your business establishment & due to that occurence you did not get paid wouldn't you be a tad upset?!? He did nothing wrong yet he is the one getting the short end of the stick.

Never seems to amaze me, how greedy people are. I mean, come on now....Mr. Villafranca's insurance paid $36,000, the City's Insurance offered $51,500 plus paid the renters, what more does he want?! Maybe Mr. Villafranca should have covered his home for more and made sure that his personal property was covered. I guess he thinks if he pushes the City enough, maybe he'll get hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars. He really should be grateful that he is getting what he is getting and thank the lord that no one was injured or even killed.

This is completely different than the previous story where David Smith took credit for divying up the money. She got hers, & a large sum at that, because she went to the paper saying the city wasn't giving them enough.

I feel for the homeowner. I'm sure this whole ordeal has been a nightmare. Maybe the city can tear down & haul off the garage at no cost as a goodwill gesture. Lord knows there are plenty of city employees with nothing better to do. Smith is making 2300.00 a month, maybe he can chip in and help.