Comments for Jeremy Jojola

Comment on $1,000.00 public dollars spent to study leaky window by Denise 'De' Wojtkowiak Regan

Denise 'De' Wojtkowiak Regan — Mon, 07 May 2012 22:21:11 +0000

Please….do not insult our intelligence with such mumbo jumbo…the “administrative fees” at the very least should have been negotiated on the front end. Not back-end billed. And how many hours are we billing for? What is the consultant hourly fee? Are we getting $100/hr for 10 hrs? How many hours does it take to make the assessment (sort of like how many people does it take to change a light bulb?)

True, this needs to be a “non-story” for anyone who benefits from business practices like these…

…but for regular folks trying to weed out poor business practices in their elected civil servents, THIS IS A VERY BIG STORY. Thank you JJ.

Comment on $1,000.00 public dollars spent to study leaky window by jeremyjojola

jeremyjojola — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:00:33 +0000

thanks for the perspective Bill. -JJ

Comment on $1,000.00 public dollars spent to study leaky window by Bill

Bill — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:08:50 +0000

This item of news, in the vaccuum you’ve presented it, sounds ridiculous… as an architect, I know it’s a reality and could be a much bigger issue than the letter presents on its face. It may have been a wise investment to spend $1,000 on several meetings and $8,000 to resolve a window leak (which can mean removal of the entire window, frame, flashing, membranes, etc…) when the other options are to “seal it!” (which is detrimental to a properly functioning window system,) or ignoring it (which can cause severe damage many times more expensive in both repair design and the construction involved.)

In summation, this is a non-story.

Comment on $1,000.00 public dollars spent to study leaky window by Edward Fronapfel P.E.

Edward Fronapfel P.E. — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:05:52 +0000

Evaluations of post construction issues are not inexpensive. Verification of installation integrations, product handling, product performance and design standards are all aspects that require intensive scrutiny.

We conduct hundreds of tests and evaluations of these issues. You must understand the nature of the industry and jurisprudence applications, not just replacing leaky windows or doors without understanding the reasons.

Comment on Viewers respond to Shame On report by Darren

Darren — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:21:15 +0000

Hilarious….GREAT story! But notice EVEN THE UNION GUY evades the direct question which was..”Why is it that these people holding the protest signs are NOT union members and getting paid Union wages and benefits”???? Too freaking funny. Does ANYONE see the hypocrisy of the Union in this? Really???

Comment on Viewers respond to Shame On report by Joe C

Joe C — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:09:30 +0000

What is funny is the picketer’s are being paid approximately $10 / hr by the union and are not getting “union benefits”.. Whats wrong with this picture…? Hypocrisy to the tenth power…

Comment on Viewers respond to Shame On report by Kris West

Kris West — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:08:34 +0000

Great story. Local 55 appears to be little more than a group of bullies. Like all bullies, they’re inherently cowards who are too afraid to comment when confronted with their actions.

Comment on Viewers respond to Shame On report by Amber Andrews

Amber Andrews — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:05:19 +0000

O.K. then … Thank you for doing the story. The whole thing sounds to me like an attempt to put small biz owners out of work. I see this happening in all fields. larger corps do whatever they can to shut down small sole proprietor operations. Sometimes like this sometimes by undercutting prices. when you choose the larger company, eventually the small ones all go under(look around the city at all the closing companies) Once they have gone under all the great prices that company had go WAY up. and yet the employees do not get pay raises…

Comment on Viewers respond to Shame On report by Charlene Harris

Charlene Harris — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:51:51 +0000

Good to see reporters out where the action is. Good job Jeremy!

Comment on Welfare Abuse Reaction & Blocking ATM Transactions by Kite Flying In Blog

Kite Flying In Blog — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:15:38 +0000

About The Sale Block Pattern Commercial Banner Flag 102…

[...] ed in section 12-47.1-103 (15), C.R.S. , in-state simulcast facilities as define [...]…