Yesterday Sylvia Dolomont was told that the demolition of her home in North Sydney was moved from Wednesday to Thursday. We can believe her because the Cape Breton Post reported the same.

For her and her supporters assisting with the cleanup effort, that meant another 12 or so desperate hours to find a way to save her home. Some locals weighing in on social media suggested they might go to the home on Thursday in a last-ditch effort to prevent its destruction.

That didn't happen. If you've been following the local news, you probably already know why by now.

Despite telling the public it was rescheduled to Thursday, the CBRM suddenly had their contractor go in after dark on Wednesday, and knock the house down.

They didn't finish the job. They just knocked it down so that there was no further hope of saving it. The job wasn't completed until the next day anyway. How could it be? They were working in the dark.

I've been back and forth with councillors and the CBRM communications rep, Jillian Moore, by email and private messaging several times today, trying to understand why it was done. Although Moore and Councillor MacMullin feel otherwise, based on an email from CBRM's bylaw inspector, Richard Wadden, sent to the councillor, my interpretation is that they were avoiding people being there the next day. 

Note what Wadden says:

"Based on some intelligenc [sic] r garding [sic] safety issues..."

Using the formal-sounding, cool FBI-ish word "intelligence", he says the demolition went ahead because they had some intel (aka the less cool-sounding "information") of safety issues related to the planned demolition.

He didn't say what that information was, nor did he say what the safety issues were.

His version sounds different than what the CBRM's Jillian Moore told CTV:

“It was originally scheduled to be demolished Wednesday morning, however, the contractor was unable to attend at that time, so we expected it would be Thursday. But then later in the day the contractor was able to co-ordinate for that day. He was scheduled to demolish the house, so it was decided to go ahead in the early evening around 7 p.m."

Moore agrees that it was rescheduled for Thursday. But she explains that they went ahead with starting the demolition on Wednesday in the dark only because the contractor was suddenly able to coordinate getting there. Her explanation didn't include any mentions of it being about safety.

At least not until I followed up with her via email to ask why there were two seemingly different explanations. At that point she offered additional comments to me:

"Public safety is always our top concern and would have been a conversation when deciding to proceed in the early evening. Ultimately, when the contractor became available the site was clear and deemed safe at that time, therefore the decision was made to proceed in consideration of timeliness and the safety of neighbours and observers."

As much as I appreciate her prompt response to my inquiry, that answer is about as generic as they come. She says safety "would have been a conversation". She doesn't say it "was" a conversation. And what she told CTV had nothing to do with public safety. She just said it was about the contractor suddenly becoming available just long enough to knock the house down... but, as I noted, not to finish the job until the next day when the Cape Breton Post and CBC found out it had happened and showed up to get their pictures.

In fact, Councillor Bruckschwaiger shared the CBC picture with me, reminding me that it doesn't get dark until 7:30pm. And while I appreciate him wanting to share information with me, it's important that he realize that (i) the demolition was started after dark, and (ii) sunset in Cape Breton is currently around 6:30pm.

The pictures from today exist because the job wasn't completed last night. It couldn't be completed last night, because it was a demolition in the dark.

Needless to say, I'm inclined to believe Sylvia Dolomont offered a reasonable assessment in her CTV comments of how the decision to start the demolition on Wednesday came about:

"The snakes crawl at night. They came in the dark. Sneaky. Why didn't they come in the day? We were here all day.”

Just enough was done so that there was no chance of saving the house. Sometime before 8:04 PM, her house met its end.

Now I want to switch gears for a moment. This story has sparked conversation every time an update hit the local media and it's been very divisive.

There are those very critical of Dolomont. And there are those very critical of the CBRM.

Some suggest her home was long overdue for destruction. Others suggest what one does in their own home is their own business.

And neither of those two general opinion groups are entirely accurate, nor entirely wrong.

Dolomont's home wasn't abandoned, but it wasn't occupied. She acknowledged herself as a "hoarder" but informed the CBRM there was no such bylaw against it. She asked the limits on the number of possessions a homeowner could possess, and the CBRM council and executive sat silent without an answer. She paid her taxes on her home and was in good standing. In fact, she also paid prior non-compliance fines levied against her too. Her home was broken into, but that's a crime by those who did so. She had a rodent issue, but many occupied homes throughout the CBRM suffer from the same. And right at the very last possible opportunity, she somehow was able - with the assistance of supporters - to empty the home of all of its contents.

But she was a hoarder. And for anyone who's ever seen an episode of the TV series that shows extreme cases of such, there's no way to downplay how disgusting the living conditions are when someone has a psychological inability to discard anything - sometimes possessions, and sometimes even garbage itself.

The CBRM council saw photos of the interior of the home. While they were not included on the agenda for the meeting that was published to their website, they verbally described what they saw during the council session. It included extensive mold, and extreme volumes of items, trash, or debris filling the home.

Nobody needs to attempt to suggest this was ok. Her very supporters are aware that this was a hoarding issue and endeavored to find a way for her to get her house in order at least for long enough to attempt to spare it from demolition.

Anyone living in such a neighborhood would obviously have their concerns. There were reports of pungent odors emanating from the home and an increased volume of rodents in the area that were said to be taking up residence inside.

After all this time, did the CBRM really have to go in the dark of night to knock down the home?

Or wouldn't the responsible thing for a municipal government to do is to arrive when they say they will, not avoid any confrontation with supporters or protesters, and demolish the home because they believe that is the right thing to do.

Council voted for the demolition order to occur within 30 days in January 2017.

The CBRM's Paul Burt proclaimed repeatedly that the home was without redemption, had structural damage, and needed to be demolished. He insisted the problems had been ongoing for 8 years.

If these beliefs were so strong, and if the council was in such agreement that they voted to demolish it within 30 days, here's two questions:

1. Why did they give this woman extensions after the demolition order, and let her spend money and recruit helpers if they felt there was no way the home could be salvaged?

2. When it was finally time to demolish the home, why did they say it would be Thursday, and then sneakily show up on Wednesday night, not to finish the job, but just to knock it down ensuring it was gone for good?

For the latter, I think my characterization yesterday still seems accurate: "Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap".

For the former, it's my belief that they needlessly and carelessly gave this woman false hope.

If was time for her home to be demolished, it was time for the CBRM to demonstrate some respect and leadership ability. You show up at the site when you tell everyone - including the public - you'll be there and you do the job then. You don't worry about criticism because you are certain you've made the right decision.

I don't believe it would be a good idea for Dolomont to pursue legal action at this point. It may be more cost-effective to simply cut her losses, move on, and try to avoid a similar outcome for her other home.

However, based on my review of the timeline of events, it's not entirely clear that she would not have a case. I could write several more pages describing the basis for saying so. However, I always find it more compelling to let other people tell the story. So I'll contemplate a follow up that showcases what now appears to be an irresponsible sequence of events by the decision makers at the CBRM.

Until then, just keep in mind that this situation is not at all as black and white, or day and night as it appears.

NOTE: The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more