permit inspections

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Eigenvector wrote:
>> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
>> rights as a homeowner?
>>
>> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
>> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
>> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
>> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>>
>> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
>> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
>> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.
>
> As others said, I presume it can vary by locality, but where I've been (in
> VA/TN now KS), the inspection covers the work scope of the permit and
> _directly_ affected interconnection(s).
>
> The only place I've ever seen any difficulties beyond that is if an
> obvious and imminent hazard is observed--they're obligated to note that
> and take action (and, of course, you would want them to in such a case).
>
> They can't come to inspect a garage addition and use that as an excuse for
> a complete household inspection/witch hunt. The place where the garage
> feed ties into the existing panel or the new subpanel feed to from the old
> is, of course, in that jurisdiction as noted. If that shows an obvious
> fault in the main panel, he (rightfully) wouldn't be required to simply
> ignore it. OTOH, that an existing house is, say, 2-wire service, the
> addition extension inspection doesn't mean the whole house has to be
> brought up to current Code and can't cite old work that was adequate as a
> current defect.
>
> --

Alright, so he can't just roam around looking to ch-ch-ching ching the
city's coffers. As you said, obviously if there was something faulty it
would be good for him to point it out.

On Aug 12, 10:31 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
> > drywall.
>
> > Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
> > my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
> > night?
>
> I cannot imagine anyone actually applying for one in a case like that.
>
> If a permit was actually requested for every job in the country that needed
> one, it would create major problems in staffing the inspector's offices and
> the big home improvement stores would be going out of business.
>
> I'm all for following building codes but no way should a permit be needed
> for such minor repairs.

With the influx of new people, it won't last much longer, but in
Bedford and many other counties you do not need a permit for an
agricultural building. The theory is that only animals are endangered
by poor wiring, etc., I guess. I did get a permit when I built my
shop, but the inspection wasn't onerous. Do you have to actually BE a
farm? Nah. Buy three chickens and raise 'em for meat, go out of the
farm bidness when you kill the fryers and eat 'em. Actually, a friend
did that with rabbits on his one acre "farm." I know another guy who
has about 60 acres, "raised" horses and dogs for years, and got some
pretty fair tax write-offs in the process, while building everything
from barns and hay sheds to a car port for his house. He dealt just
enough horses to make a profit every third year, too.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Looks, from the headers, like either washington state or minnesota.
>
> $ host 24.18.65.40
> 40.65.18.24.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.mn.comcast.net.
> 40.65.18.24.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.wa.comcast.net.
>
> Sure looks like a comcast misconfiguration somewhere.

whois 24.18.65.40

Checking IP: 24.18.65.40...
Name: c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.wa.comcast.net
IP: 24.18.65.40
Aliases: c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.mn.comcast.net
Domain: comcast.net

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

evodawg coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and
> Plumber
> is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
> General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
> authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
> and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
> to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I
> do
> this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to
> do some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.
>
> Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes
> a little more initiative.
>

If you guys want to see the future, come to England (specifically England,
or Wales, but not Scotland or N Ireland because they're different...)

Went to see my local BCO (Building Control Officer or inspector). Over here,
Building Control goes way beyond matters of safety. We need officialdom to
change windows and external doors, heating (even vented CH), add insulation
and all manner of other nonsense. Needless to say, much of this never gets
checked in...

Oddly enough, gas work isn't covered. You only need to be CORGI (government
approved scheme) licensed if doing for hire or reward (but you do need to
be "competant" if doing your own work).

Anyway, after an hour's chat over some plans I have for renovating a 1950's
bungalow, it was made clear to me exactly what he thought about of the
fluffy stuff that's been added to the Building regs here.

I feel extremely lucky to have an inspector who's general attitude was "I'll
help you make sure it safe, and about the fluffy stuff, do what you can but
I won't hold you bang up to current standards because we realise it's not
always practical with older buildings" (paraphrased).

Electrics has a lot of Councils flummoxed since it was brought under
building regs in 2005. I was given the choice to have my worked checked
over by a qualified electrician at some 300 pounds cost to me. Or get
myself qualified (but not a government scheme member) and the council would
accept my certification for work done by me on my own house.

I'm generally happy with electrics and can find my way around the IEE wiring
regs, so I signed up for a course leading to the basic domestic installer's
qualification, which wasn't hideously expensive and can be taken over 4
weekends. One more optional 3 day weekend has the option of obtaining a
fully recognised qualification in the regulations themselves, though that
goes beyond domestic work, covering industrial and agricultural. Had to go
and buy a Megger off ebay so I can formally test my systems, but that's a
good thing to do anyway.

Assuming the council don't change their mind, this is a fairly amicable
arrangement which suits me.

However, the problem is that the approach varies wildly from council to
council (the council which is responsible for buildings work and planning
is the district or borough council, which is one level below the county
council, so there are 100's of such councils over England). This is despite
the regulations being set by Westminster.

The policy could even vary from inspector to inspector, though the senior
inspector usually keeps his team singing roughly the same song.

It could so easily have been very very difficult to do anything due to the
near impossibility of implementing some current regulations in an old
house.

Cheers

Tim

Generally, I've found that if you work with them, they will work with you.
No worries and no attitudes is the best approach IMHO.

If you claim you know more (which you may) or have rights (which you do) and
it is perceived as stepping on their toes or testing their influence, then
you will have a nit picking, detail oriented person on your case for a long
time to come.

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com

V8013-R


"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
> rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Swingman wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>
>> > That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
>> > and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers
>> > and builders, whose numbers are legion.
>> >
>> Would that were true.
>
> For the most part, it is true. There are, of course, exceptions to
> everything.
>
>> When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
>> subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
>> to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to
>> inspect was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and
>> in several years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area
>> behind the subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering
>> the integrity of the homes.
>
> The discussion is about enforcing building standards, not the kind of
> things that happen when you expect the government to protect you from ALL
> the majestic physical forces of nature. :)
>

This particular instance included proper certification of the building
site as well. That particular area of TX is one with a high concentration
of clay that swells and shrinks with moisture content. The builder had
filled the back yards into an erosion channel to make larger backyards and
had failed to adequately assure the stabilization of the fill, thus the
later occurrences of backyards sliding away into the creekbed.


... snip

>
> It has always been this way, and I don't even know that you want it any
> other way ... unless you want more government intrusion in your life than
> you already have.
>

I'll agree with the latter statement. This just confirmed that the amount
of intrusion we already have is pretty much useless -- we certainly don't
need more and I wouldn't come close to advocating that.


... snip
>
> The biggest problem I face in building the best house possible is NOT the
> building standards, and NOT the competent enforcement of same, it is the
> shoddy workmanship, and lack of pride in same, that goes into building
> these days ...

It's not just building, it seems to be endemic to everything. Here, I am
overjoyed when I have work done where it is right the first time. It is
very seldom that this happens anymore, there's always something that is
screwed up; and it's not because I am being overly particular -- this is
big things, like the fact the new brakes on the F-150 just plain locked up
when applying any pressure to them after a brake job. Multiple other
examples abound. I don't know if it is an entitlement mentality that
people think they are deserving of good compensation despite the quality of
their work, or something else, but quality work seems to have become a rare
commodity.



> along with almost non-existent, and competent,
> *supervision* during the process.
>

That should be the last line of defense; people should have enough pride
in their work to do it correctly regardless of whether someone is watching.
[Yeah, I'm an idealist]



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Eigenvector" wrote

> To me the permit system is deeply flawed in that the policies are not
> clearly documented, not friendly to the layman, and subject to far too
much
> interpretation by the inspectors.

You pretty well hit the nail on the head. But, it's their supposed knowledge
of the building codes that gives the inspector his power over you. And,
since no one is perfect, an inspector's erroneous code "interpretation" can
often come into play and cause you grief.

Can't tell you how many times I've had an inspector fail an electrical final
for having an overhead recessed can in/close to a shower area, only to have
to point out to him that his interpretation of the code failed to account
for the height of the ceiling, which he had not bothered to measure.

IOW, knowledge can indeed, be power (although in that event he's just as
likely to fail you somewhere else in retaliation). :)

The point being is that the building inspection process is a "game", and
like any other it behooves both participants to learn the rules and study
how to play it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I had one of the flaming assholes inspecting my shop. This one had the
ability to get the electric company to disconnect the service to my shop
until I passed his approval. I ran into a problem after he approved the
rough in and then nothing changed with the outside
box that he objected to upon final approval. Kept insisting that the power
company would have an issue. They came out and laughed, said no problem.
It didn't help, of course there was no admitting of any error on his part,
just more flames.
Cost me more money to fix it but his highness finally approved.

Most will work with you, good luck.


"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
>> rights as a homeowner?
>>
>> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
>> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
>> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
>> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>>
>> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
>> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
>> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.
>
> Sounds like common sense rules here.
>
> Be polite, diplomatic, and accomodating and the inspection should be just
> fine.

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
> rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.

Sounds like common sense rules here.

Be polite, diplomatic, and accomodating and the inspection should be just
fine.

>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
>>>>>> income.
>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>>>>
(major snippage)

I don't really want to argue with the above statement, but most places that
I am aware of (in Canada) the permit fees do not come anywhere close to the
actual cost of inspections and any effect on property taxes, other than for
the most major types of renovations or additions, is negligible.

"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Makes sense to me. Just because you know the codes for big buildings
>> does
>> not mean you know the code for a house. Knowing the steel beam needed to
>> support a bridge does not correlate with the truss for a 20 foot wide
>> roof.
>
> I does not take rocket science to figure it out either.
> --

No, it does not, but we have a system (screwy as it may be) with checks to
insure it is done properly. Get the proper license and you're covered.

I dropped one of my state boiler licenses to take a lesser rated one. Why?
The one that proves I have more knowledge does not allow me to be "in
charge" but the lesser one does.

charlie wrote:

>
> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
>>>> rights as a homeowner?
>>>>
>>>> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
>>>> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
>>>> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
>>>> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at
>>>> hand?
>>>>
>>>> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
>>>> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
>>>> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.
>>>
>>> Sounds like common sense rules here.
>>>
>>> Be polite, diplomatic, and accomodating and the inspection should be
>>> just fine.
>>
>> Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
>> drywall.
>>
>> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
>> my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep
>> at night?
>
> do you need a permit for brushing your teeth too?
>
> i'd move.

Damn right, I renovated a kitchen, no permit required, as I didn't change
location. Shed < 110 sq feet, no permit, deck less that 2 1/2 feet off the
ground, no permit required. Only permit I have needed was an electrical
service upgrade, in 12 years in the house, totally renovated it, new
shingles, new eavestrough, furnace etc., no permits.

Get the hell out of there.
--
Froz...

When we upgraded our electric panel for the house (which is located on
the outside of the garage) the electrical inspector wanted to see the
inside of the garage and my garage building permit...which was
completed and signed off 6 months earlier!. He also changed his mind
on how he wanted something completed half way through the inspection -
this ended up costing me an extra $500 in the end (I had a permit for
a attached garage...but he said it was detached...so it changed the
inerpretation of the electrical code.). The final straw was when the
power company called me at work and said " your power has been
disconnected...what do you want us to do now?" It seems the inspector
took it upon himself to call the power company and arrange my power to
be cut before my electrician was prepared for the transfer. The
inspector shouldn't even have been making that call.

Then again, I live in an area where a new door requires a permit.

SB

J. Clarke wrote:
> krw wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>>> says...
>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shoddy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it
>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>> or it leaks.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak
>>>>>>>>>>> decides
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
>>>>>>>>>> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT,
>>>>>>>>>> GTWF
>>>>>>>>>> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>> of thing doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>>> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?
>>>>>>>> I did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue was permits
>>>>>>>>> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not
>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> "licensed plumbers".
>>>>>>>> Even worse. Inspections show nothing.
>>>>>>> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
>>>>>>> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>> "sorry, your fault".
>>>>>> I note that you don't contest my point. This is all
>>>>>> administrivia
>>>>>> that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an
>>>>>> excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were
>>>>>> replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would
>>>>>> quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
>>>>> So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or
>>>>> inspections?
>>>>>
>>>> No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.
>>> Better a complete fool with a signed off inspection than a
>>> brilliant
>>> boy like you with an unsaleable property.
>> You are a fool. Absolutely wrong, as well.
>
> Well, that's two tries you've made at scathing rebuttal neither of
> which amounted to more than name-calling? Care to try for a third?
>
anybody's shoes full of yellow liquids yet?

> What's the law? The International Residential Code only lists the
> three northernmost counties of NY state as being in seismic zone D1 or
> higher and specifically exempts detached structures less than 200
> square feet in area from the permit process, however NY state uses a
> modified version of that code with permitting requirements
> estabilished by statute and with local ordinance also able to place
> other requirements on the permit process. So if you're in Seismic
> Zone D1 and the local ordinances don't exempt your shed the inspector
> doesn't have a lot of choice in what he enforces.

Sure he does... happens every day (I'm not saying it's right, just that it
is the way things are).

> The code generally grandfathers existing structures, hence your house
> doesn't have to be rebuilt.

All true. Northernmost county, 12x22 shed etc.

It is the law. My point was that it was that it was ouside the bounds of
common sense, not outside the bounds of the law.

In a small community there are two factors that come into play: "limitted
resources" and "every-body knows everybody". Besides not having enough time
to for zero-tolerance enforement he would likely be run out of town for
being a dickhead. He does not enforce everything to the letter of the law (I
have been the beneficiary, and I have seen it in several other cases).

At least in this community, zero-tolerance code enforcement is neither
realistic nor practical. That is, they (in this case I mean not just the
inspector but also the villiage board.) probably could not make it happen
even if they were so inclined.


-Steve




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Doug Brown wrote:

>>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>>>>>
> (major snippage)
>
> I don't really want to argue with the above statement, but most places
> that I am aware of (in Canada) the permit fees do not come anywhere close
> to the actual cost of inspections and any effect on property taxes, other
> than for the most major types of renovations or additions, is negligible.

Didn't say that. Here if your home has gone up lets say 100,000.00 and you
add an attached porch, guess what? You get reassessed and you are now
paying taxes on the added value of the porch and the 100,000,00 it's now
worth. That's kinda reversed in the last 2 years with folks contacting
the County Tax Man to reassess what the home is worth today.

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.co.nr/

> Well I don't want to get too far into this, I've certainly got what I
> needed and regardless of how I feel about my county's permit system it
> doesn't change how I'll interact with the inspector. I don't fault the
> inspector for local regulations. He/she just enforces them - the
> commissioners are the ones who write them.

>But with regards to what you said, the inspectors and the county should be
>following the law no ifs ands or buts. If the laws are ambiguous then they
>need to be rewritten or interpreted once and followed per that
>interpretation. By ignoring laws when they get
>silly/inconvienent/unnecessary you open the door to all sorts of corruption
>and poor regulatory practices.

I disagree.

I live in a village of maybe 2000 residents un upstate NY. I think the
Mayor get's paid $2500/year and each trustee gets $1000.
These guys understandably rubber stamp some generic pre-existing code. It
would be impractical to do otherwise.

The current building instector would not let me build my glorified garden
shed on 24" a mortered stone wall because we are in "an earthquake zone".
To pacify him, I had to embed steel pedistals in the corners.

The irony is that my 150 year old home is made of brick (not veneer) upon a
mortered stone foundation. If we have an earthquake, I suppose I should
therefore run for the shed.

I don't fault the village board; I consider that overzealous enforcement in
the absense of common sense.

-Steve













** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Eigenvector wrote:

> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
> rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
> the
> shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the inspector
> have the right to roam freely about my house looking for problems and
> mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.

I think it really depends upon the area of the country and the
jurisdiction in which you live. Some areas, the permitting process and
inspections are little more than tax collection and a cursory verification
you didn't do anything overtly stupid (like try to wire with extension cord
wire,etc). Other areas of the country and various municipalities are much
more nanny-state and intrusive, requiring a permit to so much as pick up a
hammer.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm sure it varies quite a bit by location. Here in Tucson I'm
> building a workshop and doing some remodeling under a permit. The
> inspectors have been great. They have bent over backwards to be
> helpful, and have made an unmistakable point to not look at anything I
> haven't specifically invited them to look at.
>

So how is progress on the new shop Bridger?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Eigenvector" wrote:

> Does the inspector have the right to roam freely about my house
> looking for problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just
> the task at hand?

Housing inspectors are like traffic cops.

You are going to end up spending money.

Trick is to figure out what is the lowest cost "ticket", pay it and
move on.

> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob
> through my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these
> people sleep at night?

Probably very well, thank you.

Sounds like Cook County from a time gone by.

Lew

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on drywall.
>>
>>Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through my
>>wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
>>night?
>>
>Damn! Where do you live, anyway?

Looks, from the headers, like either washington state or minnesota.

$ host 24.18.65.40
40.65.18.24.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.mn.comcast.net.
40.65.18.24.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-24-18-65-40.hsd1.wa.comcast.net.

Sure looks like a comcast misconfiguration somewhere.

scott

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

> Swingman wrote:

> > That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
> > and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
> > builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >
> Would that were true.

For the most part, it is true. There are, of course, exceptions to
everything.

> When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
> subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
> to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
> was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
> years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
> subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
> integrity of the homes.

The discussion is about enforcing building standards, not the kind of things
that happen when you expect the government to protect you from ALL the
majestic physical forces of nature. :)

These houses could have been better than 'built to code' and still slide
into a creek due to many more factors than the inspection process ... folks
will simply continue to build where houses do not belong, and no amount of
building standards, per se, will stop that.

The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
> time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
> certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
> bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city
collected
> its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability.

SOP ... the builder is ALWAYS the responsible party for building to the
various codes/building standards, NOT the geopolitical entity responsible
for enforcing building standards in their particular jurisdictions.

It has always been this way, and I don't even know that you want it any
other way ... unless you want more government intrusion in your life than
you already have.

> Pretty much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection
process.

It's basically simple, you want better government/enforcement ... you get
involved in the process.

Granted, you may have to be intimately involved in the business to
appreciate that building standards, and enforcement of same, increase the
odds of a homebuyer purchasing a better product today then they did 40 years
ago, and it is getting better all the time.

That said, you must understand that a house "built to code", is a house
built to minimum standards ... but it is indeed a fact that we do have
better "building standards" today.

But, to assume that means we have better built houses doesn't always follow.

The biggest problem I face in building the best house possible is NOT the
building standards, and NOT the competent enforcement of same, it is the
shoddy workmanship, and lack of pride in same, that goes into building these
days ... along with almost non-existent, and competent, *supervision* during
the process.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

evodawg wrote:
>
>
> Didn't say that. Here if your home has gone up lets say 100,000.00 and you
> add an attached porch, guess what? You get reassessed and you are now
> paying taxes on the added value of the porch and the 100,000,00 it's now
> worth.

Luckily, not all localities do that.

We pay for the add-on, and that's it.

"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and
> Plumber
> is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
> General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
> authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
> and High Rise Buildings.

Makes sense to me. Just because you know the codes for big buildings does
not mean you know the code for a house. Knowing the steel beam needed to
support a bridge does not correlate with the truss for a 20 foot wide roof.

Swingman wrote:

> "evodawg" wrote
>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>
> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>
> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
> and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
> builders, whose numbers are legion.
>
> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most don't
> speak
> English.
>
> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't seen
> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
>
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.co.nr/

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
>>drywall.
>>
>>Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
>>my
>>wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
>>night?
>>
> Damn! Where do you live, anyway?

King County Wa. I don't even live in a city, just unincorporated county.

Actually I misspoke, technically a permit is required to repair drywall,
however if you drive down to the office and present them with plans on what
you are trying to do - they might wave the permit, then again they might
not. I can even post the e-mail, but haven't to protect the poor sap who
wrote me the e-mail. However the e-mail will ABSOLUTELY find its way to the
next general election, one of the county representatives happens to live 5
doors down from me. Rules like this are exactly why people break the law
and corruption spreads.

J. Clarke wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:

>>My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the
>>house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of
>>construction, age of house, etc.

> Huh? How do actuarial tables enter into paying off a claim?
> Actuarial tables are used to assess rates, not to determine damages or
> whether the company is going to pay off on a given claim.

My point is simply that they have no idea of the actual state of the
building at the time that they insure it. Given that, there is no way
for them to know whether any problems are due to work done by me vs.
work done by others.

>>Hypothetically assuming what you say is true, how exactly would it
>>be
>>enforced? How would the insurance people know whether something was
>>done by you or by someone else before you bought the house?
>
>
> How would you prove that you didn't do it? And suppose that you do it
> and it fails after you sell the house and the next owner's insurance
> company decides to come after _you_ for doing illegal and substandard
> work? Then what?

I don't need to...it's up to the insurance company to come up with a
reason for them to not pay out. If the next owner's insurance company
tries to come after me, they would have to prove that I did the work
rather than one of the previous owners. Besides, they would have to
prove that I *knew* there was something wrong, otherwise it's just
simply chalked up to stupidity. My insurance agent explicity stated
that homeowner stupidity was covered by the insurance.

Note...I'm not saying that this is how I would actually behave...in fact
my own work as so far been permitted except for very minor stuff like
rewiring outlets. I'm just saying that around here at least it would be
*very* hard to get into trouble with the insurance people for not
getting permits for residential construction work.

Chris

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ecb8844a-d527-4987-86fd-e306066c4905@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sure it varies quite a bit by location. Here in Tucson I'm
> building a workshop and doing some remodeling under a permit. The
> inspectors have been great. They have bent over backwards to be
> helpful, and have made an unmistakable point to not look at anything I
> haven't specifically invited them to look at.
>
> I think where they can get invasive is when they have received a
> complaint, and the homeowner refuses them entry to the property. then
> they have to go get a search warrant, be accompanied by cops, and the
> whole thing is about problems.

So they do have to have a search warrant and police escort to "just show up"
unless invited. That was something I had never heard myself, having always
assumed they could pretty much do whatever they wanted - in the name of
"safety". That was based on stories of inspectors who walked down streets
and knocked on people's doors that looked like they might have done work
recently.

It's not my intention to be a dickhead about it and I don't have anything to
hide regardless. Its just that I keep hearing these stories of inspectors
finding small things and causing the person the spend thousands and
thousands of dollars on items that simply shouldn't matter and didn't even
pertain to the original inspection. The electrician told me about the story
of the guy who finished his basement and was told to pull all the drywall
down - since drywalling requires a permit.

>
> but your locality may be different from mine, and your specific
> inspector may just happen to be a flaming asshole. ask around amongst
> your neighbors for someone who has done permit/inspections for the
> type of electrical work you're doing, and see what their experience
> was like.

I wanted to ask about firsthand experience from others before I tangled with
the inspector and put myself into real trouble. The electrician who did the
work made it sound like the inspectors were real mixed bags, some were
ex-electricians, some were uneducated college kids.

I know in my area you cannot even paint your house without a permit which
leads me to think these guys play serious hardball. Part of that has to do
(I assume) with the fact that the city relies on permits from homebuilders
to pad the city funds. Now that home construction has slowed considerably
they're knuckling down on small permit items.

But I can live with it. I guess simply keeping my mouth shut and being
polite will get the job done. I'd certainly not pull a lawyer stint on him
and try to bully him around.

In article <cxZpk.123$5C.82@trnddc02>, [email protected] says...
> Swingman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> evodawg wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
> >>> it
> >>> leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
> >>
> >> Not always so simple, no.
> >
> > Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
> > plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
> > drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes
> > for the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a
> > good many scientific principles.
> >
> > (That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
> > than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
> > one!) ;)
> >
> > Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
> > 'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
> > backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
> > attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
> > properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
> > need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.
> >
> > All in need of competent "inspection".
> >
> > I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
> > Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
> > from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
> > NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!
> >
> > DAMHIKT ... :)
> >
> >
> > -- www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 5/14/08
> > KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and Plumber
> is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
> General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
> authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
> and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
> to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I do
> this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to do
> some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

You're probably better off not being licensed to do houses. Your
malpractice insurance would likely be more than you make (I'm
assuming your part-time status here). As long as you can find
enough fun stuff to do, lay low (and "advertise by word-of-mouth
only). ;-)

> Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes a
> little more initiative.

I'm the opposite (though I'm an electrical engineer). Electrical,
particularly home wiring, is trivial stuff. Plumbing isn't really
all that involved either, I just hate doing it. ;-)

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> evodawg wrote:
> > Swingman wrote:
> >
> >> "evodawg" wrote
> >>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
> >>> income.
> >>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
> >>
> >> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
> >> for
> >> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>
> >> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
> >> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy
> >> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>
> >> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
> >> don't
> >> speak
> >> English.
> >>
> >> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
> >> seen
> >> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>
> > I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
> > works
> > or it leaks.
>
> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
>
>
> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may well
> be when you put your foot through the floor.

That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
(got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
of thing doesn't happen.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> evodawg wrote:
> >>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "evodawg" wrote
> >>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
> >>>>> income.
> >>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
> >>>> for
> >>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
> >>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
> >>>> shoddy
> >>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>>>
> >>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
> >>>> don't
> >>>> speak
> >>>> English.
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
> >>>> seen
> >>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>>>
> >>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
> >>> works
> >>> or it leaks.
> >>
> >> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
> >> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
> >> well
> >> be when you put your foot through the floor.
> >
> > That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
> > (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
> > of thing doesn't happen.
>
> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?

I did.

> The issue was permits
> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
> "licensed plumbers".

Even worse. Inspections show nothing.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >>> says...
> >>>> evodawg wrote:
> >>>>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
> >>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
> >>>>>>> income.
> >>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
> >>>>>>> permit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which
> >>>>>> cry
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
> >>>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
> >>>>>> shoddy
> >>>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
> >>>>>> don't
> >>>>>> speak
> >>>>>> English.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you
> >>>>>> ain't
> >>>>>> seen
> >>>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
> >>>>> works
> >>>>> or it leaks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
> >>>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
> >>>> well
> >>>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
> >>>
> >>> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
> >>> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this
> >>> sort
> >>> of thing doesn't happen.
> >>
> >> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?
> >
> > I did.
> >
> >> The issue was permits
> >> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
> >> "licensed plumbers".
> >
> > Even worse. Inspections show nothing.
>
> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
> "sorry, your fault".

I note that you don't contest my point. This is all administrivia
that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man an
excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an
excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were
replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would
quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >>> says...
> >>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> evodawg wrote:
> >>>>>>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
> >>>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
> >>>>>>>>> income.
> >>>>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
> >>>>>>>>> permit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which
> >>>>>>>> cry
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
> >>>>>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
> >>>>>>>> shoddy
> >>>>>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply
> >>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> speak
> >>>>>>>> English.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you
> >>>>>>>> ain't
> >>>>>>>> seen
> >>>>>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it
> >>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>> or it leaks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
> >>>>>> well
> >>>>>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
> >>>>> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this
> >>>>> sort
> >>>>> of thing doesn't happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?
> >>>
> >>> I did.
> >>>
> >>>> The issue was permits
> >>>> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
> >>>> "licensed plumbers".
> >>>
> >>> Even worse. Inspections show nothing.
> >>
> >> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
> >> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
> >> says
> >> "sorry, your fault".
> >
> > I note that you don't contest my point. This is all administrivia
> > that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man an
> > excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an
> > excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were
> > replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would
> > quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
>
> So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or
> inspections?
>
No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.


--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >>> says...
> >>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>> evodawg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate
> >>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>> income.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
> >>>>>>>>>>> permit.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of
> >>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>> cry
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce
> >>>>>>>>>> building
> >>>>>>>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> shoddy
> >>>>>>>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply
> >>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>> speak
> >>>>>>>>>> English.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you
> >>>>>>>>>> ain't
> >>>>>>>>>> seen
> >>>>>>>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it
> >>>>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>>>> or it leaks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak
> >>>>>>>> decides
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it
> >>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT,
> >>>>>>> GTWF
> >>>>>>> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> sort
> >>>>>>> of thing doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The issue was permits
> >>>>>> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not
> >>>>>> require
> >>>>>> "licensed plumbers".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even worse. Inspections show nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
> >>>> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
> >>>> says
> >>>> "sorry, your fault".
> >>>
> >>> I note that you don't contest my point. This is all administrivia
> >>> that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man
> >>> an
> >>> excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an
> >>> excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were
> >>> replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would
> >>> quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or
> >> inspections?
> >>
> > No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.
>
> Better a complete fool with a signed off inspection than a brilliant
> boy like you with an unsaleable property.

You are a fool. Absolutely wrong, as well.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >>> says...
> >>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>> evodawg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "evodawg" wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> permit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cry
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce
> >>>>>>>>>>>> building
> >>>>>>>>>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> shoddy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> multiply
> >>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> speak
> >>>>>>>>>>>> English.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ain't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> seen
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it
> >>>>>>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>>>>>> or it leaks.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak
> >>>>>>>>>> decides
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it
> >>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT,
> >>>>>>>>> GTWF
> >>>>>>>>> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> sort
> >>>>>>>>> of thing doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I did.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The issue was permits
> >>>>>>>> and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not
> >>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>> "licensed plumbers".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even worse. Inspections show nothing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
> >>>>>> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
> >>>>>> says
> >>>>>> "sorry, your fault".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I note that you don't contest my point. This is all
> >>>>> administrivia
> >>>>> that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man
> >>>>> an
> >>>>> excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an
> >>>>> excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were
> >>>>> replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would
> >>>>> quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or
> >>>> inspections?
> >>>>
> >>> No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.
> >>
> >> Better a complete fool with a signed off inspection than a
> >> brilliant
> >> boy like you with an unsaleable property.
> >
> > You are a fool. Absolutely wrong, as well.
>
> Well, that's two tries you've made at scathing rebuttal neither of
> which amounted to more than name-calling? Care to try for a third?

I'm not name-calling, just stating the facts. I have no unsaleable
property. In fact, I own no property (for two more weeks, anyway).
I had no problem selling my previous homes, even though I had made
extensive modifications, mostly without permits or inspections. I
added a garage to one and pulled permits, had the foolish
inspections (what a bunch of morons), and had been issued a CO.

Yes, you are a fool and a liar. It really is that simple.

--
Keith

"Mike Marlow" wrote

> You watch too many scarey movies John.

LOL ... The chorus of that old Bluegrass song, "Fox On The Run" keeps
popping up while reading this thread.

And, here comes the chorus, again ...

:)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:55:31 GMT, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> "evodawg" wrote
>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>>
>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>>>
>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
>>> and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
>>> builders, whose numbers are legion.
>>>
>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most don't
>>> speak
>>> English.
>>>
>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't seen
>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
>>>
>>I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
>>it
>>leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
>
>
> Or theplumbing allows contaminated water into the rater supply - BAD.
> Plumbing requires inspection for the safety of us all - as well as to
> recuce the likelihood of structural damage and black mold infestations
> in the building in question due to poor workmanship.
> If building standards are not enforced it is like food inspections not
> being enforced - as has been the case with the vast meat recalls from
> Maple Leaf Foods in Canada these last few weaks - or water plants not
> being inspected - like Walkerton Ontario several years back (E-coli)
> or the levys around new Orleans 3 years ago this week.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

You mean like requiring a permit to repair drywall or paint your house?
While I absolutely do agree that certain things should require permits -
electrical panel work, gas piping, supply side water
installation/renovation, sewer work - there are other things that exist
simply to supply the city with meaningful occupation - painting your house,
replacing a faucet, replacing an outlet, installing drywall, installing a
hot water heater.

Permits are a way for the city/county to protect you and others from
situations that require expertise and skill to perform safely. But taken to
a logical conclusion they are the means by which the state can remove your
freedoms without you even noticing.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

> It's not just building, it seems to be endemic to everything. Here, I am
> overjoyed when I have work done where it is right the first time.

It's so damn unusual that I actually write letters of
commendation/recommendation to the subcontractors that simply do what they
were paid to do. I'm tickled to do it for the most part. Hoping that the
effort will insure repeat performance, and that the amount of time expended
will be paid back in spades.


> That should be the last line of defense; people should have enough pride
> in their work to do it correctly regardless of whether someone is
watching.
> [Yeah, I'm an idealist]

LOL ... I just used that very term (idealistic) against a client in onsite
meeting yesterday.

In the Austin area, I had just caused the demolition of this
"green/conservation minded to the extreme" client's old house on a 10 tract
to make way for the new.

The old house had been built back in the 70's by a "Mother Earth" hippy
couple who lived in it for about ten years before it obviously fell down
around their ears.

When I heard, for the 50th time, "we'd like to do this and this (basically
to reduce some type of imagined environmental impact issue), I pointed the
now bare ground where the old house recently stood and said "You see that
old house over there?".

She stopped and with a puzzled look said, "But, there is no longer a house
over there!"

I said "Precisely! .. and the reason there is no longer a house there is
because it was built with 100% "idealism", without the least regard for
"realistic" building practices!".

After the silence, that was pretty much the end of "saving the 30 year old
single pane windows", to put back in an energy efficient, new home in lieu
of new, low E, double pane glass that will _really_ have an impact on the
environment! ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>
>> > Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
>> > 'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
>> > backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
>> > attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
>> > properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they
> still
>> > need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into
>> our
>> first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water
> in
>> the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither
> would
>> admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
>> bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
>> brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.
>
> I can probably go a good way to solving the mystery for you:
>
> HVAC indeed ran the drain pvc. The sheetrockers covered it up behind the
> drywall (by accident? ... maybe, but it could also depend upon whose
> countries soccer team won the day before in the playoffs). The plumbers
> never saw the drain line because it was behind the sheetrock and under a
> cabinet/vanity to boot, and it is not the responsibility of the plumber to
> know/guess what the AC guys did ... not in this day and age, in any event.
>

In our case, the condensate pipe was not covered by sheetrock, it was just
sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening air
gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water failed
to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.


> Lay the blame as follows:
>
> The builider for NOT supervising the work and not being experienced
> enough,
> or caring enough, to anticipate the problem;

Absolutely. Builder went to great lengths outlining their quality
construction and attention to detail. Seems like that's kind of a big
detail to miss. If I were a builder, I'd have a checklist of items prior
to closing out a site. Verifying A/C drainage would be one of the things
on that checklist.


> the sheetrockers for being
> careless and doing shoddy work;

In this particular case, I can't fault the sheetrockers

> the HVAC contractor for not going back and
> insuring that all drain lines were in place before firing up the AC units
> for the first time.
>

Yep

> BTW ... this is a common rookie mistake. And one, as a builder responsible
> for supervising ALL work, I confess to having made myself. But most good
> builder's only do it once ... at least so far! :)
>

This was a name-brand builder, they should not have made this mistake.
OTOH, all of the AC units in the whole neighborhood failed multiple times
in the immediate years after the warranties ran out. Turns out the builder
went with the low bidder (explains the hook-up issue) who had purchased a
warehouse full of closed out A/C units and who failed to match inside and
outside units during installation. Installer just went to the warehouse,
grabbed a compressor and condenser and took to the job site. Builder
narrowly avoided a class-action lawsuit (which I normally abhor, but in
this instance was certainly justifiable) because the organizing group was
collecting legal funding around Christmas time.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "evodawg" wrote
>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>
>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>>
>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
>> and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
>> builders, whose numbers are legion.
>>
> Would that were true. When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
> subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
> to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
> was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
> years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
> subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
> integrity of the homes. The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
> time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
> certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
> bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city
> collected
> its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability.
> Pretty
> much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection process.
>
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

So what if the City disclaimed any liability? If I were acting on behalf of
the city I would likely do the same. That doesn't mean there is no
liability and dispite the old saying you can fight City Hall, and win. This
seems like a perfect case for a class action against the municipality
involved.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> evodawg wrote:
> ...
>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
>> it
>> leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
>
> Not always so simple, no.

Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes for
the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a good
many scientific principles.

(That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
one!) ;)

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in attics
where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed properly
fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still need a lot
of the same skills for proper installation.

All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving from
jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are NOT the
people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ... :)


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the
>>>>>> house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of
>>>>>> construction, age of house, etc.
>>>>
>>>>> Huh? How do actuarial tables enter into paying off a claim?
>>>>> Actuarial tables are used to assess rates, not to determine
>>>>> damages
>>>>> or whether the company is going to pay off on a given claim.
>>>>
>>>> My point is simply that they have no idea of the actual state of
>>>> the
>>>> building at the time that they insure it. Given that, there is no
>>>> way
>>>> for them to know whether any problems are due to work done by me
>>>> vs.
>>>> work done by others.
>>>
>>> The investigator looks at the damage, sees something fishy in the
>>> plumbing job that caused it, goes down to the town hall, pulls the
>>> package on the property, finds that the work in question was not
>>> present when the CO was issued, and no permit was issued
>>> subsequently, and they've got you.
>>
>> You are digging yourself deeper into hypotheticals here.
>>
>> First, you need to cite a case, any single case, where insurance
>> coverage was denied due to lack of permit and/or inspection. It
>> has
>> not been my experience, nor anyone I've ever known who has had a
>> claim.
>>
>> Does my anecdotal evidence trump your statement? Of course not, but
>> until you've a cite to case law, insurance boilerplate or an actual
>> incident, you're just blowing smoke.
>
>Fine, you win. Never ever pull a permit for anything and never ever
>get anything inspected and there is no circumstance whatsoever under
>which you will experience the slightest difficulty as a result. Are
>you happy now?
>

That, of course, is a complete non-sequitor and not representative of
any of the comments you've received.

You made a claim, others are asking for you to back your claim.

scott

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" wrote
>>
>> covered by sheetrock, it was just
>>> sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
>>> drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening
>> air
>>> gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water
>>> failed to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.
>> Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party
>> inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring
>> one ... a good thing!
>>
>
> Absolutely. At the time, we were young and naive and didn't think one
> would need a house inspector for a new construction home bought from a
> tract builder.
>
>
When I was selling my previous house, the prospective buyer hired an
inspection company to look at my place. The chap they sent out was a
disaster. His crowning achievement was in a spare bedroom where he
found NOT ONLY a dead electrical outlet, but also a switch that "didn't
seem to do anything". You guessed it: a wall switch that controlled an
outlet. There were a couple minor items on his list that I fixed but
nearly all were similar if not quite as spectacular as the switched outlet.

The buyer was a PITA who thought if he could keep grumbling and bitching
that I would give him the house. I got tired of it, told the real
estate whiz bang to put it back on the market. The buyer then buys it
"as is" for the price I had listed. Once in a while there is justice.

curmudgeonly yours,
jo4hn

Inspectors can also be very reasonable. We wanted a door between the back
of the garage and the newly built parkside hallway. The garage will never
be used for a car (built in 1929 for something mini), and this is well-
known in Radburn. A regular door was a nono, so the inspector and the
builder consulted and decided on a (temporary) drywalled closet to be built
inside the garage. Upon final inspection approval the closet was removed
and now we can move things into the garage from the street side and out on
the park-side. Works fine for all. Our estate will have to handle the
sale of the house, but that will be their concern.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> Inspectors can also be very reasonable. We wanted a door between the
>> back of the garage and the newly built parkside hallway. The garage
>> will never be used for a car (built in 1929 for something mini), and
>> this is well- known in Radburn. A regular door was a nono, so the
>> inspector and the builder consulted and decided on a (temporary)
>> drywalled closet to be built inside the garage. Upon final
>> inspection approval the closet was removed and now we can move things
>> into the garage from the street side and out on the park-side. Works
>> fine for all. Our estate will have to handle the sale of the house,
>> but that will be their concern.
>>
> Han;
>
> Just instruct them to build a drywalled closet prior to the sale
> inspection. The buyer can do as he/she pleases with the closet.
>
> Dave N
>

That's my plan. Our 30 year-old kids are supposed to know about this.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
> inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
> "sorry, your fault".
>

Not true John. Though often stated here, there are so few cases of
insurance companies not paying due to some form of owner neglect or
whatever, that they become insignificant. Insurance companies daily pay for
every form of stupidity, code violation, etc. on the part of the homeowner.
They have to - they take the money.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Actually I misspoke, technically a permit is required to repair drywall,
> however if you drive down to the office and present them with plans on
> what you are trying to do - they might wave the permit, then again they
> might not. I can even post the e-mail, but haven't to protect the poor
> sap who wrote me the e-mail. However the e-mail will ABSOLUTELY find its
> way to the next general election, one of the county representatives
> happens to live 5 doors down from me. Rules like this are exactly why
> people break the law and corruption spreads.

"Technically a permit is required" can be intended to mean a couple of
things. Without posting what the fellow said in full, it's hard to believe
he's really being difficult.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
> rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
the
> shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the inspector
> have the right to roam freely about my house looking for problems and
> mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
how
> that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.

I deal with municipal building inspectors on a weekly, sometimes daily,
basis, in reportedly one of the toughest jurisdictions for residential
construction in the country, and have yet to have an inspector look at
anything except what he was called out to inspect ... mostly they don't have
the time to do otherwise.

Providing you don't have the mafia involved in your local government, I
don't think you have anything to worry about in most locales.

AAMOF, welcome the inspector with sincerity, take the opportunity to ask
questions of him which you may not be sure about, and you'll probably enjoy
the process.

My favorite inspectors are the toughest ones. They ultimately make my job
easier, and more profitable, as a builder by allowing me to hold "the
trades" feet to the fire.

The inspectors are, in effect, doing you a favor by their presence,
especially when it comes to putting your house back on the market in a few
years ... which we shall all do in one way or the other. Homeowners need to
be aware that lenders are really getting into requiring "3rd party"
inspections prior to closing on home loans in the wake of the mortgage
crisis ... and these guys are hired to be junk yard dogs on _your_ house.

The local building inspectors are pussycats by comparison.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

[email protected] wrote:

>
> When we upgraded our electric panel for the house (which is located on
> the outside of the garage) the electrical inspector wanted to see the
> inside of the garage and my garage building permit...which was
> completed and signed off 6 months earlier!. He also changed his mind
> on how he wanted something completed half way through the inspection -
> this ended up costing me an extra $500 in the end (I had a permit for
> a attached garage...but he said it was detached...so it changed the
> inerpretation of the electrical code.). The final straw was when the
> power company called me at work and said " your power has been
> disconnected...what do you want us to do now?" It seems the inspector
> took it upon himself to call the power company and arrange my power to
> be cut before my electrician was prepared for the transfer. The
> inspector shouldn't even have been making that call.
>
> Then again, I live in an area where a new door requires a permit.
>
> SB

As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

Rich

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.co.nr/

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> The investigator looks at the damage, sees something fishy in the
> plumbing job that caused it, goes down to the town hall, pulls the
> package on the property, finds that the work in question was not
> present when the CO was issued, and no permit was issued subsequently,
> and they've got you.

Patently untrue.


>>
>> I don't need to...it's up to the insurance company to come up with a
>> reason for them to not pay out.
>
> Yep, and you causing the problem is reason.

Patently untrue.

>
>> Besides, they would have to
>> prove that I *knew* there was something wrong, otherwise it's just
>> simply chalked up to stupidity. My insurance agent explicity stated
>> that homeowner stupidity was covered by the insurance.
>
> "Knew or should have known" is a popular phrase in law these days.

You watch too many scarey movies John.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

> Swingman wrote:

> > Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
> > 'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
> > backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
> > attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
> > properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they
still
> > need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.
> >
>
> Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into our
> first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water
in
> the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither
would
> admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
> bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
> brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.

I can probably go a good way to solving the mystery for you:

HVAC indeed ran the drain pvc. The sheetrockers covered it up behind the
drywall (by accident? ... maybe, but it could also depend upon whose
countries soccer team won the day before in the playoffs). The plumbers
never saw the drain line because it was behind the sheetrock and under a
cabinet/vanity to boot, and it is not the responsibility of the plumber to
know/guess what the AC guys did ... not in this day and age, in any event.

Lay the blame as follows:

The builider for NOT supervising the work and not being experienced enough,
or caring enough, to anticipate the problem; the sheetrockers for being
careless and doing shoddy work; the HVAC contractor for not going back and
insuring that all drain lines were in place before firing up the AC units
for the first time.

BTW ... this is a common rookie mistake. And one, as a builder responsible
for supervising ALL work, I confess to having made myself. But most good
builder's only do it once ... at least so far! :)


> > I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
> > Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
> > from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's,
are
> > NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!
> >
> > DAMHIKT ... :)

> So you're saying just because they think they look good doesn't mean
they
> are competent?

As about as competent as the fashionable, three day stubble that goes along
with the territory can make them.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on drywall.
>
>Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through my
>wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
>night?
>
Damn! Where do you live, anyway?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

covered by sheetrock, it was just
> sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
> drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening
air
> gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water failed
> to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.

Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party
inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring
one ... a good thing!

As I mentioned before, this happens enough that it is almost automatic to
check before firing up an AC in new construction. IOW, what happened to you
is indeed inexcusable, and one of the reasons the "trades" are not paid in
full until the building final is passed, and with all systems going full
blast, giving me the opportunity of doing a "backcharge" under their
contract in the event of a similar, expensive to repair, incident.

In your case, the builder should have been all over the plumbing contractor
for missing the connection; and the HVAC subcontractor for not insuring that
both drainage and overflow lines were operational (attic insulation is often
the last thing to go in and it is very common to see the overflow pan drain
stopped up with insulation _before_ the units are even powered).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

>
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> evodawg wrote:
>> ...
>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
>>> it
>>> leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
>>
>> Not always so simple, no.
>
> Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
> plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
> drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes
> for the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a
> good many scientific principles.
>
> (That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
> than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
> one!) ;)
>
> Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
> 'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
> backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
> attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
> properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
> need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.
>
> All in need of competent "inspection".
>
> I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
> Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
> from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
> NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!
>
> DAMHIKT ... :)
>
>
> -- www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 5/14/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I do
this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to do
some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes a
little more initiative.

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.co.nr/

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
> drywall.
>
> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
> my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
> night?


I cannot imagine anyone actually applying for one in a case like that.

If a permit was actually requested for every job in the country that needed
one, it would create major problems in staffing the inspector's offices and
the big home improvement stores would be going out of business.

I'm all for following building codes but no way should a permit be needed
for such minor repairs.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
>> drywall.
>>
>> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
>> my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep
>> at night?
>
>
> I cannot imagine anyone actually applying for one in a case like that.
>
> If a permit was actually requested for every job in the country that
> needed one, it would create major problems in staffing the inspector's
> offices and the big home improvement stores would be going out of
> business.
>
> I'm all for following building codes but no way should a permit be needed
> for such minor repairs.
Well I don't want to get too far into this, I've certainly got what I needed
and regardless of how I feel about my county's permit system it doesn't
change how I'll interact with the inspector. I don't fault the inspector
for local regulations. He/she just enforces them - the commissioners are
the ones who write them.

<Stepping onto the soapbox>
But with regards to what you said, the inspectors and the county should be
following the law no ifs ands or buts. If the laws are ambiguous then they
need to be rewritten or interpreted once and followed per that
interpretation. By ignoring laws when they get
silly/inconvienent/unnecessary you open the door to all sorts of corruption
and poor regulatory practices. However by forcing people to follow stupid
laws such laws are brought to light and CHANGED so that they are no longer
stupid.

To me the permit system is deeply flawed in that the policies are not
clearly documented, not friendly to the layman, and subject to far too much
interpretation by the inspectors.

I'm sure it varies quite a bit by location. Here in Tucson I'm
building a workshop and doing some remodeling under a permit. The
inspectors have been great. They have bent over backwards to be
helpful, and have made an unmistakable point to not look at anything I
haven't specifically invited them to look at.

I think where they can get invasive is when they have received a
complaint, and the homeowner refuses them entry to the property. then
they have to go get a search warrant, be accompanied by cops, and the
whole thing is about problems.

but your locality may be different from mine, and your specific
inspector may just happen to be a flaming asshole. ask around amongst
your neighbors for someone who has done permit/inspections for the
type of electrical work you're doing, and see what their experience
was like.

Swingman wrote:

>
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> evodawg wrote:
>> ...
>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
>>> it
>>> leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
>>
>> Not always so simple, no.
>
... snip
> Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
> 'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
> backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
> attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
> properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
> need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.
>

Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into our
first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water in
the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither would
admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.


> All in need of competent "inspection".
>
> I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
> Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
> from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
> NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!
>
> DAMHIKT ... :)
>

So you're saying just because they think they look good doesn't mean they
are competent?

>
> -- www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 5/14/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:

> "evodawg" wrote
>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>
> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>
> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
> and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
> builders, whose numbers are legion.
>
Would that were true. When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
integrity of the homes. The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city collected
its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability. Pretty
much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection process.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Eigenvector wrote:
> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are
> my rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently
> in the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does
> the
> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at
> hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector
> could pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes
> me wonder how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.

Inspections are by consent--if you decide to withdraw consent and send
the inspector packing you should be able to, however if he doesn't get
to inspect everything he thinks he needs to inspect then you don't get
your Certificate of Occupancy.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Eigenvector wrote:
> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
> rights as a homeowner?
>
> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>
> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.

As others said, I presume it can vary by locality, but where I've been
(in VA/TN now KS), the inspection covers the work scope of the permit
and _directly_ affected interconnection(s).

The only place I've ever seen any difficulties beyond that is if an
obvious and imminent hazard is observed--they're obligated to note that
and take action (and, of course, you would want them to in such a case).

They can't come to inspect a garage addition and use that as an excuse
for a complete household inspection/witch hunt. The place where the
garage feed ties into the existing panel or the new subpanel feed to
from the old is, of course, in that jurisdiction as noted. If that
shows an obvious fault in the main panel, he (rightfully) wouldn't be
required to simply ignore it. OTOH, that an existing house is, say,
2-wire service, the addition extension inspection doesn't mean the whole
house has to be brought up to current Code and can't cite old work that
was adequate as a current defect.

--

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> For people who have had to have inspections for permit work what are my
>>> rights as a homeowner?
>>>
>>> I'm having an inspector come out to examine some work I did recently in
>>> the shop and am curious what my rights are as a citizen. Does the
>>> inspector have the right to roam freely about my house looking for
>>> problems and mistakes or is he/she constrained to just the task at hand?
>>>
>>> The electrician who did the work made it sound like the inspector could
>>> pretty much do whatever they wanted once inside - which makes me wonder
>>> how that wouldn't violate my 4th amendment rights.
>>
>> Sounds like common sense rules here.
>>
>> Be polite, diplomatic, and accomodating and the inspection should be just
>> fine.
>
> Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
> drywall.
>
> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob through
> my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these people sleep at
> night?

do you need a permit for brushing your teeth too?

i'd move.

Eigenvector wrote:
...
> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob
> through my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these
> people sleep at night?

Where the heck are you located so I can know to stay out of that
jurisdiction? :) (or :(, really?)

Sounds like need to just "don't ask, don't tell" would be the way to fly...

--

Eigenvector wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Actually I just got back my response from the inspectors office on
>>> drywall.
>>>
>>> Repairing drywall requires a permit. Meaning if I put a doorknob
>>> through my wall I have to get a permit to repair it. How do these
>>> people sleep at night?
>>
>>
>> I cannot imagine anyone actually applying for one in a case like
>> that.
>>
>> If a permit was actually requested for every job in the country
>> that
>> needed one, it would create major problems in staffing the
>> inspector's offices and the big home improvement stores would be
>> going out of business.
>>
>> I'm all for following building codes but no way should a permit be
>> needed for such minor repairs.
> Well I don't want to get too far into this, I've certainly got what
> I
> needed and regardless of how I feel about my county's permit system
> it doesn't change how I'll interact with the inspector. I don't
> fault the inspector for local regulations. He/she just enforces
> them
> - the commissioners are the ones who write them.
>
> <Stepping onto the soapbox>
> But with regards to what you said, the inspectors and the county
> should be following the law no ifs ands or buts. If the laws are
> ambiguous then they need to be rewritten or interpreted once and
> followed per that interpretation. By ignoring laws when they get
> silly/inconvienent/unnecessary you open the door to all sorts of
> corruption and poor regulatory practices. However by forcing people
> to follow stupid laws such laws are brought to light and CHANGED so
> that they are no longer stupid.
>
> To me the permit system is deeply flawed in that the policies are
> not
> clearly documented, not friendly to the layman, and subject to far
> too much interpretation by the inspectors.

That may be so, but it's true of most other areas of law as well. The
only way it's going to change is to start over from scratch, and
that's not going to happen.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

StephenM wrote:
>> Well I don't want to get too far into this, I've certainly got what
>> I
>> needed and regardless of how I feel about my county's permit system
>> it doesn't change how I'll interact with the inspector. I don't
>> fault the inspector for local regulations. He/she just enforces
>> them - the commissioners are the ones who write them.
>
>> But with regards to what you said, the inspectors and the county
>> should be following the law no ifs ands or buts. If the laws are
>> ambiguous then they need to be rewritten or interpreted once and
>> followed per that interpretation. By ignoring laws when they get
>> silly/inconvienent/unnecessary you open the door to all sorts of
>> corruption and poor regulatory practices.
>
> I disagree.
>
> I live in a village of maybe 2000 residents un upstate NY. I think
> the Mayor get's paid $2500/year and each trustee gets $1000.
> These guys understandably rubber stamp some generic pre-existing
> code. It would be impractical to do otherwise.
>
> The current building instector would not let me build my glorified
> garden shed on 24" a mortered stone wall because we are in "an
> earthquake zone". To pacify him, I had to embed steel pedistals in
> the corners.
>
> The irony is that my 150 year old home is made of brick (not veneer)
> upon a mortered stone foundation. If we have an earthquake, I
> suppose
> I should therefore run for the shed.
>
> I don't fault the village board; I consider that overzealous
> enforcement in the absense of common sense.

What's the law? The International Residential Code only lists the
three northernmost counties of NY state as being in seismic zone D1 or
higher and specifically exempts detached structures less than 200
square feet in area from the permit process, however NY state uses a
modified version of that code with permitting requirements
estabilished by statute and with local ordinance also able to place
other requirements on the permit process. So if you're in Seismic
Zone D1 and the local ordinances don't exempt your shed the inspector
doesn't have a lot of choice in what he enforces.

The code generally grandfathers existing structures, hence your house
doesn't have to be rebuilt.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

StephenM wrote:
>> What's the law? The International Residential Code only lists the
>> three northernmost counties of NY state as being in seismic zone D1
>> or higher and specifically exempts detached structures less than
>> 200
>> square feet in area from the permit process, however NY state uses
>> a
>> modified version of that code with permitting requirements
>> estabilished by statute and with local ordinance also able to place
>> other requirements on the permit process. So if you're in Seismic
>> Zone D1 and the local ordinances don't exempt your shed the
>> inspector
>> doesn't have a lot of choice in what he enforces.
>
> Sure he does... happens every day (I'm not saying it's right, just
> that it is the way things are).
>
>> The code generally grandfathers existing structures, hence your
>> house
>> doesn't have to be rebuilt.
>
> All true. Northernmost county, 12x22 shed etc.
>
> It is the law. My point was that it was that it was ouside the
> bounds
> of common sense, not outside the bounds of the law.
>
> In a small community there are two factors that come into play:
> "limitted resources" and "every-body knows everybody". Besides not
> having enough time to for zero-tolerance enforement he would likely
> be run out of town for being a dickhead. He does not enforce
> everything to the letter of the law (I have been the beneficiary,
> and
> I have seen it in several other cases).
>
> At least in this community, zero-tolerance code enforcement is
> neither
> realistic nor practical. That is, they (in this case I mean not just
> the inspector but also the villiage board.) probably could not make
> it happen even if they were so inclined.

If he gives your shed a pass in a community like that, then the next
guy will have one a little bigger and expect the same, and so on until
he's expected to give a 28 story high-rise a pass.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

evodawg wrote:
...
> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or it
> leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.

Not always so simple, no.

--

evodawg wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "evodawg" wrote
>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
>>> income.
>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>
>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
>> for
>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>>
>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy
>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
>>
>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
>> don't
>> speak
>> English.
>>
>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
>> seen
>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
>>
> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
> works
> or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may well
be when you put your foot through the floor.


> Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then
> ok.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> evodawg wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "evodawg" wrote
>>>>> As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
>>>>> income.
>>>>> Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.
>>>>
>>>> If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
>>>> for
>>>> inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.
>>>>
>>>> That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
>>>> standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
>>>> shoddy
>>>> remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.
>>>>
>>>> ... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
>>>> don't
>>>> speak
>>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
>>>> seen
>>>> nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it! :(
>>>>
>>> I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
>>> works
>>> or it leaks.
>>
>> Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .
>>
>>
>> And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
>> drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
>> well
>> be when you put your foot through the floor.
>
> That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
> (got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
> of thing doesn't happen.

Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"? The issue was permits
and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
"licensed plumbers".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)