Greensburg seeks court orders to raze rundown houses
Greensburg officials will turn to a Westmoreland County judge to clean up two city properties.
City officials have filed complaints in Common Pleas Court over houses at 525 N. Main St. and 44 Meadowbrook Ave.
Richard and Robert McFeeley of Bay Village, Ohio, own the North Main Street property and Kathryn Rossi of Magee Avenue, Jeannette, owns the Meadowbrook property, according to the complaints.
Both houses are “unfit for human occupancy,” “in a state of severe dilapidation” and unsafe and unsanitary, according to the complaints.
City officials are seeking a court order to direct the property owners to repair the homes or to demolish them within 60 days of the order.
Greensburg officials further seek permission to tear down the properties or remove the violations if no action is taken by the landowners. Officials then want judgments to be placed against the property owners for the costs.
City officials said they sent notices of violations to the owners in October. The owners didn't file appeals, city officials said.
Rossi said she no longer owns the property after it was foreclosed on by a bank.
“It's not mine. It belongs to the bank. I haven't lived there since October 2007,” she said.
“I'm not going to do work on a place I don't live at,” she added. “It's up to the bank.”
A pending foreclosure has resulted in a judgment but no sale has occurred, city Solicitor Bernard McArdle said.
Rossi, he said, still owns the property.
Repeated telephone calls to the McFeeleys were unanswered.
In September, city officials took a similar court action against Keith Maydak of 613 Cross St., East McKeesport, who served eight years in prison after he was convicted of swindling AT&T out of more than $550,000.
Maydak, serving as his own attorney, has filed a response with the court, which says he did not receive proper notice about a municipal claim being placed against him in December.
He further challenges any lien being put against him and claims that the court lacks jurisdiction in the case.
In 1994, a federal jury convicted Maydak of money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud and access device fraud for defrauding AT&T by setting up a 900 telephone number under fictitious company names.
About $1.6 million was generated from thousands of calls placed to the line between May and November 1991, according to reports.
The fictitious companies received money for each of the calls via commissions paid by AT&T.
Maydak, described as an accomplished computer hacker in court records, has filed numerous lawsuits in federal court over the years.
In one, he sued the federal government to get soy milk served to him in prison. In another, he sued Bartolacci Private Stock Olive Oil, saying its 10-ounce bottle didn't contain 128 tablespoon servings, as the label advertised, according to published reports.
A hearing remains to be scheduled by court officials in the Maydak case.
Bob Stiles is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-6622 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.