"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)