These articles give one side of this dispute and damage with implication responsible persons in our community, without presenting an opportunity for their rebuttal or rationale.
In Mr. Eckersley’s articles, we learn the matter is before the courts. We read Lori Eyben’s side of the matter. We learn she is aware the work being done is substandard. We do not know of her efforts, other than court actions, with others to correct construction problems nor do we learn of any effort locally to assist her or her builder successfully complete her project. No one wanted failure in this project, I’ll bet.
Why did Ms. Eyben give up her right for a ‘lien’ by paying the contractor? Who called for the final building inspection? The articles do not clarify if remediation porch work was ongoing at the time of the call for the final inspection.
The articles seem to lack in-depth journalism work to learn of the contractor’s efforts to correct a bad situation. Neither do they reveal what others did in an effort for resolution.
I question why this extensive article is so unlike Mr. Eckersley’s usual pieces? Why, in article 2, such a negative statement from the RDCK Nelson Building Manager (senior building inspector)? Is the reduced Creston RDCK office hours a factor? Who wins and who loses and why?
The local building inspectors, including the current inspector, have been helpful and supportive, not judgemental over our 44 years in the valley, many of those years spent in community service.
Without prejudice,
Larry Brierley
