WineCoff Hotel Fire free essay sample

Would you stay in a hotel that advertises â€Å"absolutely fireproof†? The average person would say yes, most people think â€Å"It can’t get any safer than absolutely fireproof can it? † Well there was a problem December 7th 1946, when the Winecoff Hotel caught on fire. Opened in 1913 as the tallest building in Atlanta, Georgia. Built with a steel-framed structure making the owner think it was fireproof, but it wasn’t. History of the Winecoff Hotel, now known as the Ellis Hotel The steel-framed structure was built on a small lot, with about 4,386 feet per floor. Guest rooms extended from the third to the fifteenth floors, with around fifteen rooms on each floor. Corridors on guest floors were set up in an H-shape, with two elevators and upward flights of stairs opening into the cross halls, and opposing downward runs of stairs converging on a single landing from the legs of the H. We will write a custom essay sample on WineCoff Hotel Fire or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The stairway of non-combustible construction, was not enclosed with fire-resistant doors. In taller buildings multiple stairways were becoming common practices. Atlanta building code of 1911 permitted building lots of less than 5,000 square feet to have a single stairway. The steel structure of the building was protected by structural clay tile and concrete fireproofing. Interior partions of the building were made of hollow clay tile covered with plaster. Room doors were wood, with movable transom panels above each door for ventilation. The hotel room’s walls were finished with painted burlap fabric extending to the ceiling. Guest rooms were finished with as many as seven layers of wallpaper. The hotel did have a central fire alarm system, manually operated from the front desk, and a standpipe with hose racks at each floor, but there was no automatic sprinkler system. The fire’s point of origin was on the third floor west hallway, where a mattress and chair had supposly been temporarily placed in the corridor, close to the stairway to the fourth floor. One theory is that someone dropped a cigarette may have ignited the mattress or other combustibles in the corridor. The fire was first noticed around 3:15 a. m. By a bellboy who had gone to the fifth floor to help a guest, becoming trapped there. The first (and only) call to the fire department was made at 3:42 a. m. by the night manager. The manager attempted to warn guests by telephone about the fire, but the building fire alarm was not sounded. By the time the manager attempted to make phone calls to guests there was no escape possible from the upper floors in any case. The first engine and ladder companies arrived within thirty seconds of the call, by that time people were already jumping from windows. Fire department ladders could extend only part way up the building, but many guests were rescued in that manner. Ladders were placed horizontally across the alley from an adjoining building, allowing some rescues to be effective. Fire spread was hampered by the stair arrangement, while the stairs were not closed off by doors, the configuration placed ascending and descending runs around the corner from each other, keeping fire and hot gas from quickly ascending the stairs. Also, fire did not spread through the enclosed elevator shafts, laundry chutes, nor the mail chute. The fire fed on the burlap wallcoverings and ignited room doors. Doors and transoms were burned through on all but the fourteenth and fifteenth floors. Guests opened windows seeking fresh air and rescue, allowing fresh air to make the fire bigger. The fire investigation revealed that an open transom was closely associated with the ignition of a given guest room and its contents. Firefighters were hampered and in some cases injured, by falling bodies. Many guests tied bed sheets together and tried to descend. The Atlanta fire department mustered 385 firefighters, 22 engine companies and 11 ladder trucks, four of which were aerial ladder units at the Winecoff Hotel fire. A second alarm was sounded at 3:44 a. m. and a third at 3:49 a. m. with a general alarm (all available unites respond, including off duty personnel) at 4:02 a. m Mutual aid from surrounding departments brought a total of 49 pieces of equipment. Firefighters climbed adjoining buildings to fight the fire and rescue guests, including a 12-story building across the 10-foot wide alley, and a six-story building on the opposite side of the street. Of the 304 guests in the hotel, 119 died, 65 were injured, and 120 were rescued uninjured. The hotel’s originals owners lived in an apartment attached to the hotel, they also died in the fire. 32 of the deaths were among those who jumped, or fell while trying to descend ropes made of sheets tied together. Among the hotel guests were forty high school students on a state YMCA of Georgia sponsored trip to Atlanta, 30 of whom died. A national conference on fire prevention was called in 1947 at the calling of U. S. President Harry S. Truman in response to the La Salle and Winecoff fires. La Salle fire happened June 5, 1946 months earlier than the Winecoff fire. These fires highlighted the problems associated with unprotected stair openings, which provided paths for the spread of smoke and fire, preventing the use of the stairs for escape. The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Building Exit code of 1927 had already set forth principles requiring the use of multiple, protected means of egress, this was further revised to allow the code to be incorporated as law. The Winecoff fire led to the incorporation of research into flammability of building materials into code requirements and design standards. At this meeting, automatic fire alarm systems and automatic sprinkler systems were talked about. As seen in this paper the Winecoff Hotel was not â€Å"absolutely fireproof†, it’s sad these events have to happen so the NFPA can see the code changes we need. Events like these shouldn’t have to happen for the NFPA to see the results of what needs changed.

Property Taxes for Owners of Habitat for Humanity Houses

Property Taxes for Owners of Habitat for Humanity Houses Introduction Property tax rates are an essential source of revenues for the majority of local governments which ensure their local fiscal autonomy. The procedures of determining the property tax rates are complicated and extremely important for the functioning of the internal financial administration in general.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Property Taxes for Owners of Habitat for Humanity Houses specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In most cases, the property tax rates are calculated based on the market value of the property. However, in particular cases, due to the specifics of the situation, this method can be inappropriate. This paper will analyze the complex process of quantification of property tax rates for the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses, detect the main inconsistencies in the current procedures, provide two arguments in favor of giving this category of taxpayers with a tax break and two argumen ts opposing this decision and offer a resolution for the existing problem. Quantification The property tax bills received by taxpayers combine some rates imposed by different jurisdictions and can be compared to a layer cake. Similarly, the process of quantification of the property taxes paid by the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses in a particular municipality is somewhat complicated and depends upon a wide array of influential factors. The rate of property taxes is defined by property tax administration, consisting of the property assessors determining the value of parcels, the local bodies responsible for evaluating the amounts of money which are needed for the budgets of particular jurisdictions and should be taken from the property tax revenues, auditors calculating the property tax rates for different authorities and treasurers collecting the taxes and distributing them among the corresponding governments. One of the primary goals of the property tax administration is to m easure property value and adjust it to the taxpayers’ capability to pay the tax. Market value is the commonly accepted standard used for appraising the property (Mikesell, 2010, p. 496). Market value can be defined as the price at which the property could be sold in a competitive and open market. Therefore, the quantification of property taxes paid by owners of Habitat for Humanity houses in a particular municipality depends upon the market value of these houses and the decisions made by the local jurisdictions.Advertising Looking for case study on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More However, taking into account the specifics of the Habitat for Humanity programs in which partner families from vulnerable categories of population are selected and then take part in building and/or restoring the houses they will live in and receive zero-interest mortgages for buying these houses, it can be stated that there is a substantial deviation of the acquisition price from the market value. Arguments in favor of a property tax break Taking into account the inconsistency in the current system of determining the real property taxes paid by the owners of the Habitat for Humanity houses due to which the property taxes become an overwhelming burden which can tax people of their homes, it can be stated that a property tax break is required for adjusting the tax rates to the house owners’ capability to pay. The first argument for developing the appropriate tax break programs for the owners of the Habitat for Humanity houses is the deficiency in the procedures of measuring the tax breaks. The use of the standard of the market value based on the principle of possibility to use the property for different purposes for determining the tax rates for this category of taxpayers is inappropriate. Because of the deed restrictions preventing the owners of this property from selling their houses or getting home equity loans before their 20-year mortgages are fully paid. Therefore, the principle of the potential use of this property for profit is excluded because of the deed restrictions and the market value is not related to the case of the Habitat for Humanity houses. The second argument for establishing a tax break for the owners of the Habitat for Humanity houses is the patent unfairness of the current system of determining the tax rate for this category of property taxpayers. The existing provisions contradict the constitutional requirement for equal protection. Taking into account the fact that the initial objectives of the Habitat for Humanity program were to provide the low-income categories of the population with opportunities to buy affordable houses, it can be stated that the tax system contradicts the main principle of this program. It understates the efforts of the Habitat for Humanity (20 year zero-interest mortgages) and hundreds of hours of ‘sweat equit y’ the owners spent on building work due to which the residents received an opportunity to buy houses at the cost significantly different from their market value.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Property Taxes for Owners of Habitat for Humanity Houses specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Arguments against a property tax break Regardless of the apparent deficiency in the current tax system determining the property tax rates for the owners of the Habitat for Humanity houses, the application of a property tax break for this category of taxpayers can have some negative implications. The first argument against giving a property tax break to owners of Habitat for Humanity houses is the potential inconsistency in the tax administration functioning as a result of such a decision (Schick, 2000, p. 151). The property tax is the source of revenues used by the local jurisdictions for financing the schools. Consequently, the reduction of the property laws in particular spheres can result in deficits of school financing (Mikesell, 2010, p. 485). Therefore, a property tax break given to a specific category of taxpayers can lead to the imbalance of budgets and deficits in certain expenditures covered at the expense of particular tax revenues. The second argument against giving a tax break to the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses is the destruction of uniformity and the possibility of imposing different tax rates for similarly situated individuals. Tax breaks result in the gradual erosion of  the integrity of general taxes, which in their turn have some negative consequences. Rubin (2009) stated that tax breaks result in a reduction of revenues and require cutting back spending, searching for alternative sources of revenues or permitting constant budget deficits (p. 68). Additionally, the tax break for the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses can produce the impression of unequal treatment of eq uals upon other low-income citizens. It can encourage different low-income categories of population to look for the opportunities to reduce their tax payments, further erosion of the integrity of the tax system and budget deficits. Suggestion resolution As can be seen from the case under analysis, the current property taxes based upon the market value of property overburden the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses and should be reconsidered.Advertising Looking for case study on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Taking into account the fact that the owners of these houses pay higher taxes than their mortgage payoffs and some of them have to leave their homes because of the high fees, it can be stated that there are significant inconsistencies in the current tax system. Analyzing possible negative implications of giving a tax break to this category of taxpayers, it can be stated that a substantial reform instead of local measures are required for improving the existing situation. One of the possible solutions which can be suggested for adjusting the property taxes to the owners’ capability to pay is to change the procedures of determining the tax rates and using the acquisition-value assessment instead of the market value standard. Additionally, changes need to be made in the ordinary appraisal procedures, which assume that an owner can use the property for different for-profit purposes. Therefore, it is recommended to take into account the specifics of the case of the owners of Habit at for Humanity houses, including the circumstances under which they receive this property and the restrictions in use of these houses imposed by Habitat for Humanity. Generally speaking, analyzing the case of the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses, it can be stated that the acquisition value assessment procedure can be an effective alternative to the commonly used property tax rates based upon the market value of property in determining the property tax rates for low-income property holders. Conclusion Bearing in mind the importance of property taxes as a source of revenues for the local fiscal administration and taking a close look at the principles of taxation of the owners of Habitat for Humanity houses, it can be concluded that a resolution of the existing problem is not an easy one. Though the inconsistency in the existing procedures of determining the tax rates contradicts disregards the specifics of the situation of the holders of Habitat for Humanity houses, a tax break for this category of taxpayers can have several negative implications. Therefore, more fundamental changes in determining the property tax rates are needed, and using the acquisition-value assessment instead of the market value standard can be one of the possible resolutions. Reference List Mikesell, J. L. (2010). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector  (8th ed.: 2010 custom edition). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. Rubin, I.S. (2009). The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending; borrowing and  balancing (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Schick, A. (2000). The federal budget: Politics, policy, process. Washington, DC: Brrokings Institution.