Monday, February 27, 2012

Party House of the Weekend

186 College St. Amherst

The wild weekend continued over Saturday night into Sunday early morning as the Amherst Police Department responded to 186 College Street  for a report of a young female passed out due to alcohol consumption (ETOH).  Once there they found a bevy of dangerous problems all too typically associated with a Party House:

According to APD logs (12:20 AM early Sunday morning):  
ETOH 18-year-old female located stumbling around yard outside residence. A large crowd was attending a party inside first floor, where the female patient had originated from.  I made contact with RP (reporting party) who stated female was vomiting inside the house and had consumed too much alcohol.  Patient transported to Cooley Dickinson Hospital by AFD.  Large crowd of approximately 200 cleared from residence.  Two tenants issued TBL citation for Nuisance House.  Significant code violations observed while inside, including no smoke detectors, unsecurable front door and an unstable living room floor which was concaved by approximately 12"

Issued $300 ticket for Nuisance House:
David Shamula, 21 Fairway Lane, Ocean, NJ, age 20
Gregory Cantor, 27 Tri Street, Ashland. MA, age 19

Mr. Gharabegian's other holdings in town.  Yikes!

UPDATE  11:30 AM   Look who came to visit (middle vehicle with blue plate):  AFD
AFD back on the scene


Anonymous said...

Bitch was acting a fool

Anonymous said...

"Significant code violations observed while inside, including no smoke detectors, unsecurable front door and an unstable living room floor which was concaved by approximately 12""

OK, the APD noticed this and did nothing? They summonsed two kids to court for being loud but ignored things that could kill someone?!?!?!

I would have a lot more respect for the system and the town if the police also cited landlords. A lack of smoke detectors -- that is required to be passed to the AFD (who were also on scene, I believe) and they are supposed to act on that.

A floor collapsing -- that would be up there with noise, I guess. Why no fines to the landlord -- you can't possibly blame that on tenant actions.

I also question the wisdom of issuing tickets when the kids are the ones calling the police for help. These kids are going to get suspended from UMass for this -- and the next time there is a drunken girl, it will become a dead drunken girl because no one is going to want to have the police there.

This is not good public policy.

LarryK said...

As you can see by my second photo the fire department and I'm told the building inspector were back the next day for an inspection: The first floor has been condemned.

Anonymous said...

The first floor has been condemned

Is the Town of Amherst paying for alternative housing for the affected tenants?

This is what the law requires -- the TOWN has to find it, and pay for it, and then can bill the landlord or attach the property but they town has an obligation to tenants when it condemns something.

And exactly where is the town housing them, anyway?

Anonymous said...

Remember too -- if the town condemns property without doing this, the tenants will NEVER complain about anything.

That is part of why the law is this way.

LarryK said...

I believe they are living on the second floor. I assume the smoke detectors on the first floor were instantly taken care of.

Anonymous said...

How do you condemn part of a unit -- and be sure kids will stay out of it?

If the slumlord rented both floors, do either of us doubt that there were people living on both? And now?

Anonymous said...

bitch puked in my room

Tagore Smith said...

Well, I rent the _back_ ground floor apartment (not the unit where the party was.) I know the kids who live in the front a bit. They have (well, had, until this incident) big parties and are sometimes a bit louder than I would like, and there was an incident a while back where one of their guests screamed threats at me through my window and then punched and broke it. But they're nice enough kids (even if not all of their guests are.) I was a fairly wild kid myself, longer ago than I'd like to admit, so I understand where they're coming from.

In fairness to the landlord I'd like to note that my apartment is quite small but came equipped with two smoke detectors and a CO detector. I'd also like to note that, at least according to the landlord, the floor in the front was that concave because the joists under it had been broken by hundreds of kids bouncing up and down on it while dancing. He's been in the basement replacing them recently. Which is good, cause I went over there the day after this party and was shown that _one_ guy bouncing on it made it deflect by several inches- I actually left the room because I was worried about falling into the basement ;).

There's no doubt that this is over-priced sub-standard housing. But there's a place for housing like this. I have four cats, and commute to an office in Florence, by bus. Try renting _nice_ housing in walking distance to town under those circumstances around here- you won't be able to.

I knew what I was getting when I rented this place, and the kids in front knew what they were getting. I'm not sure I see why the landlord should fix the place up every year just to see it destroyed every year. I do, of course, think that he needs to do what he can to ensure that the floors don't collapse under anyone. He seems to be doing what he can in this regard, but let's be honest- residential floors aren't generally designed so that 100 kids can bounce on them safely.

In short, I don't see any real villains in this story. You've got some kids who like to party and have the judgment of.. well, kids. And you have a landlord who is doing his best to accommodate them without losing his shirt in the process.

Tagore Smith said...

Also, Larryk, where are these pictures coming from? The front of the building I live in is clearly visible from College St, so it's fair game for photography. But the officials only came to the building twice, as far as I know, and weren't here very long. Is my house under surveillance ;)?

As I said, the building sits on a public street, so it is fair game for photography. But I have to admit that it would make me a bit uncomfortable to find out that people were constantly watching and photographing it.

So... who took these photographs? How did they manage to get a snap of the official car in the driveway? Were they told it would be there, or are they just taking pictures of everything they find interesting?

If they are... well, I can tell which house the photo would have been taken from, if it were taken from a house, and I might start looking back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

LarryK said...

I work out at Hampshire Athletic Club, so I drive by almost every day. Saw AFD and knew exactly what they were doing there, so I snapped the photo. You can tell from the lousy angle I took it from my car (although I did, briefly, stop).

Tagore Smith said...

OK, well thanks for explaining. Like I said, since the house is on a public way it is of course fair game for photography. I was just curious about it, since the timing was pretty fortuitous. I'm feeling old these days, and I guess I have not quite adjusted to the way in which everything finds its way online these days.

LarryK said...

No problem.

A high ranking Amherst town politician, who did not want folks to know she was no longer living in town, once tried to have me arrested for taking a single picture of her from a public road as evidence she had moved elsewhere.

Tagore Smith said...

Ah, well, that's sort of foolish, and you have my sympathies. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that you didn't have the right to take pictures. I gather there has been some controversy in Mass in the last few years over people taking pictures in public, mainly of the police, but it seems clear that what is in public view can be photographed.

I'll admit that if you were parking your car across the street, for instance, and photographing my house day and night, I would be uncomfortable with that, though I'd probably have to grant that you had the right to do so.

That's why I asked, and if you just happened to pass by at the right time and snap a picture, well, leaving aside questions of rights, I can't even say that that bothers me. I'm tempted to make a joke about my ritual early-morning naked calisthenics in the front yard (and about how we're both lucky you missed them,) but a little worried it might be taken seriously, so... I'll just say thanks again for the explanation.