A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

"micky" wrote in message ...
A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Could be anything. Best bet is to ask your friend.

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:43:11 -0400, micky
wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

It sounds more like he was just not in favor of pointing out loopholes
in the code that he might not agree with but he can't officially deny.

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he thought the inspector told him and something happened.

"Sasquatch Jones" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:43:11 -0400, micky
wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

It sounds more like he was just not in favor of pointing out loopholes
in the code that he might not agree with but he can't officially deny.

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make
recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he
thought the inspector told him and something happened.

-------

That could be, but the term "unethical" would be the wrong term. I guess
that is why the guy is a building inspector.

"micky" wrote in message
...
A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Sounds like the inspector just wants to keep comming back and probably
charging each time he comes out.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:43:11 -0700, micky wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Personally, I think he meant "irresponsible" not unethical, or "not
allowed in my profesisnal capacity to advise" not unethical. Just a guess.

BUT! sounds intriguing, there may be some things you can, or need, to do.
I thought they could at least advise what NOT to do, though.

On 2014-10-31 9:58 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:43:11 -0700, micky wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Personally, I think he meant "irresponsible" not unethical, or "not
allowed in my profesisnal capacity to advise" not unethical. Just a guess.

BUT! sounds intriguing, there may be some things you can, or need, to
do. I thought they could at least advise what NOT to do, though.
Being irresponsible is unethical, if you are an adult whom people are
counting on.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:00:57 -0700, Adam Kubias
wrote:

...snip....
Being irresponsible is unethical, if you are an adult whom people are
counting on.

Ouch. Right, hitting hand on side of head! And, English is my first
language, too.

My main gripe is the 'new' ethics with NO sense of accountability that is
rampant. The concept that it is ok to do anything as long as you don't get
caught. It has become 'the getting cuaght' that renders the act unethical,
not the act itself.

On 10/31/2014 03:16 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make
recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he
thought the inspector told him and something happened.




snip


I read all the replies and think that's the best explanation.

About all they should really do is point out what does /not/ meet code
and leave it it that.




OTOH: The inspector /might/ have been making a sarcastic comment in that
when the owner asked what else they should change...
the inspector might have been thinking "your face"!

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:02:54 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 10/31/2014 03:16 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make
recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he
thought the inspector told him and something happened.

snip empty lines

I read all the replies and think that's the best explanation.

About all they should really do is point out what does /not/ meet code
and leave it it that.


OTOH: The inspector /might/ have been making a sarcastic comment in that
when the owner asked what else they should change...
the inspector might have been thinking "your face"!

If this "inspector" was a Section 8 inspection officer (approving the
residence - on site) or is a Code Enforcement Officer for the
municipality is still in question, here.

Section 8 inspectors are not enforcing code BUT determining the
"condition" of the residence... habitable, etc.. The owner then can
hold the section 8 renter responsible for damage...(or possibly the
county office for section 8 renters - I'm not sure how I recall the
policy).

OP needs to ask what type of inspector made the comment.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:44:10 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"micky" wrote in message
. ..
A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Sounds like the inspector just wants to keep comming back and probably
charging each time he comes out.


Municipal inspectors are salaried. They make the same, no matter how
many tickets they clear a day.

but if they don't have enough tickets, the department can be downsized.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:37:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Sounds like the inspector just wants to keep comming back and probably
charging each time he comes out.


Municipal inspectors are salaried. They make the same, no matter how
many tickets they clear a day.

but if they don't have enough tickets, the department can be downsized.

I do not see the bad in doing that.
--
"..,what is good is the front end if you don't have the back end"-- Kimberly Guilfoyle

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:37:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Sounds like the inspector just wants to keep comming back and probably
charging each time he comes out.


Municipal inspectors are salaried. They make the same, no matter how
many tickets they clear a day.

but if they don't have enough tickets, the department can be downsized.

I do not see the bad in doing that.
--

neither do I, but I bet the employees in the department do.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:50:31 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:37:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Sounds like the inspector just wants to keep comming back and probably
charging each time he comes out.


Municipal inspectors are salaried. They make the same, no matter how
many tickets they clear a day.

but if they don't have enough tickets, the department can be downsized.

I do not see the bad in doing that.
--

neither do I, but I bet the employees in the department do.


Your fire insurance rates would go up too.
Insurance companies like areas with good building code departments.

you can have a good building code department and run it efficiently too. I
don't know that ever happens though, give the nature of government
featherbedding.

On 10/31/2014 9:02 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
but if they don't have enough tickets, the department can be downsized.

I do not see the bad in doing that.
--

neither do I, but I bet the employees in the department do.


Your fire insurance rates would go up too.
Insurance companies like areas with good building code departments.

you can have a good building code department and run it efficiently too. I
don't know that ever happens though, give the nature of government
featherbedding.


Might just mean that the builders are reputable
in that area?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:02:54 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 10/31/2014 03:16 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make
recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he
thought the inspector told him and something happened.




snip


I read all the replies and think that's the best explanation.

About all they should really do is point out what does /not/ meet code
and leave it it that.

That's what my friend thought his friend met, and I'll bet that IS what
he meant .

The house owner said "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" [anything else that is not up
to code]

and the inspector said, "Well, it would be unethical to say."


PIco is right. He either used the wrong word, or I would add, he
misunderstood the question.

It's like when you call Verizon and complain about something, they
always end up asking, "Is there anything else I can help you with?"
That question is as unnecessary as the property owner's "Is there
anything else I should change." The customer is going to go on to his
next request whether the Verizon-rep asks or not, and the building
inspector is going to list all his complaints whether the house-owner
asks or not.

So the inspector figures, at least subconsciously, that the question he
heard must have been a different type of question than it really was,
like asking for a loophole, and helping an owner find loopholes** like
gf suggests, really is unethical

**As opposed to approving a house that might have failed were it not for
an exception in the law, which just happened to apply, rather than the
owner going out of his way to make it apply.

The closest example in my life is when my deck was rotting and I was
tearing it down, and I notice that the 20 inches that were under the
secon floor overhang were still good. So I cut off everything else, and
put a fascia? board in front, a face board?. I measure the height and
it was just low enough that i didn't need steps. Then the day I
finished painting, I meaured again and somehow it had gotten higher.
The inspector was coming as early as that day. I had no time or
inclination to build steps. So since I couldn't lower the deck, I
rasised the earth. I bought a bag of topsoil and spreat it in front of
the deck. It got me another quarter or half inch. I don't know if he
really measured or just eye-balled it, but the decklet passed.

Howeer if it was the inspector's idea for me to buy dirt, maybe that
would be thought unethical to tell me.


Maybe I will build steps eventually, instead of having to jump down 30?
inches, but I didn't have to do it that morning.

Thanks all.



OTOH: The inspector /might/ have been making a sarcastic comment in that
when the owner asked what else they should change...
the inspector might have been thinking "your face"!

Maybe.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:58:19 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:43:11 -0700, micky wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Personally, I think he meant "irresponsible" not unethical, or "not
allowed in my profesisnal capacity to advise" not unethical. Just a guess.

BUT! sounds intriguing, there may be some things you can, or need, to do.
I thought they could at least advise what NOT to do, though.

Thanks all.

I would like to get more from the friend's friend, but the friend will
be done working on this project in a day or two and I doubt he'll ask
him. I'll probably never meet him.

On 10/31/2014 2:10 AM, Sasquatch Jones wrote:
wrote in message ...



It sounds more like he was just not in favor of pointing out loopholes
in the code that he might not agree with but he can't officially deny.

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he thought the inspector told him and something happened.


I guess our local inspector is the exception. I helped a friend building
a house and there were two situations in the plans not to code. The
inspector took the time to offer suggestions

micky wrote:

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Suggesting that a case of Scotch in the appropriate trunk would expedite the
approvals?

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:29:19 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

micky wrote:

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Suggesting that a case of Scotch in the appropriate trunk would expedite the
approvals?

:-\
--
"We recommend using your hand to replace the fuse as it will take much longer using your knee."

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:34:06 -0400, wrote:

Too many lawyers for that kind of stuff these days and inspectors can
go to jail.

I know you know this but after hurricane Andrew - almost no inspectors
went to jail. There were some, yes. A few....on the take for years
prior to the storm.

On 11/1/2014 5:22 PM, wrote:


Lots of things have changed in Florida since then. To start with
"inspector" is not a patronage position these days.
You can't just be the mayor's son in law. You need to be certified and
licensed


But that does not mean you cannot accept tips. My stepfather was a
contractor and did a lot of major remodels and makeovers. His work was
good and always to code. When the inspector came, it was my mother's
job to put an envelope someplace, on a counter, whatever. It was always
gone when he left. This was in a large east coast city that employed
dozens of inspectors.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

But that does not mean you cannot accept tips. My stepfather was a
contractor and did a lot of major remodels and makeovers. His work was
good and always to code. When the inspector came, it was my mother's
job to put an envelope someplace, on a counter, whatever. It was always
gone when he left. This was in a large east coast city that employed
dozens of inspectors.

I grew up back east and that's how a lot of things went. Actually the system
functioned quite well. The bureaucrats have some skin in the game and it's
to their economic advantage to ensure things get done.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 11/1/2014 5:22 PM, wrote:


Lots of things have changed in Florida since then. To start with
"inspector" is not a patronage position these days.
You can't just be the mayor's son in law. You need to be certified and
licensed


But that does not mean you cannot accept tips. My stepfather was a
contractor and did a lot of major remodels and makeovers. His work was
good and always to code. When the inspector came, it was my mother's job
to put an envelope someplace, on a counter, whatever. It was always gone
when he left. This was in a large east coast city that employed dozens of
inspectors.

That is totally unethical. Just as a cop receiving a free lunch.

On 11/2/2014 12:10 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 11/1/2014 5:22 PM, wrote:


Lots of things have changed in Florida since then. To start with
"inspector" is not a patronage position these days.
You can't just be the mayor's son in law. You need to be certified and
licensed


But that does not mean you cannot accept tips. My stepfather was a
contractor and did a lot of major remodels and makeovers. His work was
good and always to code. When the inspector came, it was my mother's job
to put an envelope someplace, on a counter, whatever. It was always gone
when he left. This was in a large east coast city that employed dozens of
inspectors.

That is totally unethical. Just as a cop receiving a free lunch.



Of course it is, but that was just a normal workday. In our town with
one inspector, I'd never think of such a thing, but in the big city, it
was common. Had nothing to do with violations, but it may have in some
cases.

On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:46:23 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:02:54 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 10/31/2014 03:16 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"

Yes, and most times, inspectors are paid to check things and not make
recommendations. They could get into trouble if the person followed what he
thought the inspector told him and something happened.




snip


I read all the replies and think that's the best explanation.

About all they should really do is point out what does /not/ meet code
and leave it it that.

That's what my friend thought his friend met, and I'll bet that IS what
he meant .

The house owner said "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" [anything else that is not up
to code]

and the inspector said, "Well, it would be unethical to say."


PIco is right. He either used the wrong word, or I would add, he
misunderstood the question.


You have an inspector who said something to a homeowner. The homeowner
told a friend. The friend told you. You told us....

Who knows exactly what was asked and said. It's very possible that
what really went on is somewhat different.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:02:55 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Give the guy $200 and his "ethics" will go away.


I must be a strange exception. I simply told many crooks - "you can't
afford me!" Yes, I was offered much more "gratuities".

Their price wasn't right :-\

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:00:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

PIco is right. He either used the wrong word, or I would add, he
misunderstood the question.


You have an inspector who said something to a homeowner. The homeowner
told a friend. The friend told you. You told us....

Who knows exactly what was asked and said. It's very possible that
what really went on is somewhat different.

"... Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

;-)

On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 07:55:56 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/2/2014 12:10 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 11/1/2014 5:22 PM, wrote:


Lots of things have changed in Florida since then. To start with
"inspector" is not a patronage position these days.
You can't just be the mayor's son in law. You need to be certified and
licensed


But that does not mean you cannot accept tips. My stepfather was a
contractor and did a lot of major remodels and makeovers. His work was
good and always to code. When the inspector came, it was my mother's job
to put an envelope someplace, on a counter, whatever. It was always gone
when he left. This was in a large east coast city that employed dozens of
inspectors.

That is totally unethical. Just as a cop receiving a free lunch.



Of course it is, but that was just a normal workday. In our town with
one inspector, I'd never think of such a thing, but in the big city, it
was common. Had nothing to do with violations, but it may have in some
cases.

Some of the responding posters seem to miss that your father's work was
to code and didn't have to redo anything.

In 1970, I took a bus from Nuevo Laredo Mexcico, on the border with
Texas, and they place the customs station about 5 or 10 miles from the
border (to make life simple for Mexicans living close to the border, and
simple to go from the US to Mexico and back**) . It was dark out
already, with no lights on the bus itself, A customs inspector got on
and I saw everyone in sight take out what I'm sure was money and give
it to him. Maybe they were all importing something and really owed
customs. Maybe that was an advantage of going to the border, something
like the duty-free store in an airport, but at the time, I thought they
were mostly bribing the inspector.

I had nothing that was new and would not have owed customs, so I just
say there, looking like an American. The inspector ignored me.
Didn't even ask if I had anything to declare.

So were they bribing him or not?


**I slept 2 or 3 nights in Mexico, where it was cheaper, and 1 of the 3
times I walked back to the US, I had to drop my pants for a search.
But I didnt' have to go through Customs!

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:00:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


PIco is right. He either used the wrong word, or I would add, he
misunderstood the question.=20
=20

You have an inspector who said something to a homeowner. The homeowner
told a friend. The friend told you. You told us....

Who knows exactly what was asked and said. It's very possible that
what really went on is somewhat different.

As I said in my OP "This story must have lost something in
transmission."

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:38:35 -0500, micky
wrote:

You have an inspector who said something to a homeowner. The homeowner
told a friend. The friend told you. You told us....

Who knows exactly what was asked and said. It's very possible that
what really went on is somewhat different.

As I said in my OP "This story must have lost something in
transmission."

"...failure to communicate!" ( _Cool Hand Luke_)
--
"Dumb is local...As soon as you go 15 miles away from your dumbness, you see how dumb you are." -- Sherrod Small

Adam Kubias posted for all of us...



On 2014-10-31 9:58 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:43:11 -0700, micky wrote:

A friend told me a story tonight about a friend of his.

He's remodeling a big old house that was too big to rent to one family,
so he, or the owner before him, has broken it up into 4 or 5 apartments.

The building inspector, or perhaps a Section 8 inspector, came out
today, and told him something he had done wrong, something about the
number of rooms, and the friend of my friend said, "Okay, I'll fix that.
Is there anything else I should change?" and the inspector said, "Well,
it would be unethical to say."

This story must have lost something in transmission. Can any of you
imagine what the inspector was talking about, what might be unethical?

Personally, I think he meant "irresponsible" not unethical, or "not
allowed in my profesisnal capacity to advise" not unethical. Just a guess.

BUT! sounds intriguing, there may be some things you can, or need, to
do. I thought they could at least advise what NOT to do, though.
Being irresponsible is unethical, if you are an adult whom people are
counting on.

malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance...

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:02:55 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Give the guy $200 and his "ethics" will go away.


I must be a strange exception. I simply told many crooks - "you can't
afford me!" Yes, I was offered much more "gratuities".

Their price wasn't right :-\

It all boils down to some people have ethics and some people don't.
One can read this daily in the newz and here in the groups. Always trying
the shortcut... I love the TV show "Catch a Contractor". They have now
caught Manny twice!

--
Tekkie