Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Building Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on building inspections, memorial for 324 Main anniversary; parking-garage event raises safety concerns
Summary
On the third anniversary of the 324 Main Street collapse residents urged the council to vet structurally deficient buildings and consider a memorial at the former site; others warned about a top-floor car-meet with flames and alcohol in a downtown parking garage and asked emergency services to be prepared.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Building Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several residents used the May 27 public-comment period to mark the third anniversary of the 324 Main Street building collapse and press the City of Davenport for clarity on building-inspection follow-up and public safety.
Alderman Vasquez earlier in the meeting suggested exploring a park or memorial at the former 324 Main Street site. During public comment, William Pampern recounted the collapse anniversary and alleged lapses in the city’s follow-up inspections for at least one other downtown building he described as crumbling at Fourth and Pine; he said condemned tags and barricades had faded or disappeared and asked whether the city has a current protocol for structurally deficient buildings and when it was last reviewed.
Separately, Cheryl Shagna of the Third Ward warned council that a planned car-meet in the Harrison-Ping parking garage that night would sell top-floor parking spaces, charge admission, include food trucks and alcohol sales, and host a two-stroke engine contest that can produce flames and heavy vibration. Shagna said the garage may not be designed for the crowd-density and vibrations expected, and urged police and fire to be prepared.
Mayor and councilors took note of the anniversary and public concerns; council later moved into executive session to discuss litigation strategy (the motion referenced "Iowa code section 21.51C"). No formal action on building-inspection policy was recorded at the meeting; council members and staff acknowledged they would follow up on site conditions and permitting as appropriate.
Residents requested clearer follow-up on condemned buildings and stronger communication about status and barricades; the council did not take immediate formal action but adjourned into executive session on litigation matters.

