Annual Texas house building report

[cda]

Same as last year:::

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/growth/article231450098.html


Things got worse when her builder stopped returning calls and later went out of business. She was left with little choice but to pay for repairs herself.

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/growth/article231450098.html#storylink=cpy


An evaluation of the new-home construction industry by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram shows a system that is weighted heavily toward builders and against home buyers like Huckaby. The evaluation showed:

- Anyone can set themselves up as a home building contractor in Texas, where there is no licensing process and there are no minimum training standards.

- Purchase contracts favor the builder on newly-built homes, and the law also favors contractors when home buyers seek recourse for problems.

- The municipal inspection process, the only oversight of home builders, covers minimum construction standards. Inspectors are spread thin, and the work is often done by third-party contractors. In some areas, such as unincorporated portions of Tarrant County, municipal inspections are not even required.

City hires third-party inspectors
Randle Harwood, Fort Worth planning and development director, acknowledged in an interview that the bare wires and missing weep holes should have been caught by the private-sector vendor — a company known as Metro Code Analysis LLC — that the city used for the inspections on Huckaby’s home in late 2017 and early to mid-2018.

The Star-Telegram requested city reports from the inspection of Huckaby’s home.

The records show that inspectors from Metro Code visited Huckaby’s home 14 times between Sept. 21, 2017, and April 17, 2018.

The inspection reports showed the date of each inspection and the name of the inspector, but provided little detail about the inspector’s observations.

All 14 inspections resulted in a passing grade.

Practices vary by state
In other states, the requirements vary widely, according to a list of requirements kept by Next Insurance, a company that focuses on selling policies to small businesses.


Additional info::::


We also requested to ride-along with Fort Worth home inspectors for a day, to get an idea of what their jobs are like, but were told by city officials that it would be too difficult to arrange because the inspectors’ schedules were so busy and varied. We learned that roughly nine of every 10 residential inspections in the city is performed by a third-party vendor hired by the city.


We researched changes that have been made to state law regarding new home construction, and found numerous actions by the Texas Legislature between 1989 and 2009 that reduced regulations for builders — some of whom are well-known for making large contributions to political campaigns.

During the same time period, state laws were changed to make it more difficult for home buyers to initiate a legal action against a builder.


Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/growth/article231450098.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Mr. Inspector]

mostly third party inspectors here. Why don't we have problems like Texas?

 

[cda]

Editorial

For and against city inspectors


Many Texans work hard and save for years to build their dream homes, only to have errors or shortcuts by builders turn it into a nightmare.

A lack of licensing requirements and strong regulation stacks the deck in favor of builders, as Star-Telegram reporter Gordon Dickson demonstrated in a recent report. Among other problems, he noted that there are no requirements for someone to enter the business as a contractor and that municipal inspections conducted during construction often miss crucial errors.

This is important to Tarrant County right now, as we’re at the heart of Texas’ growth boom. Buyers need more assurance that their investment will be protected and that they can get a fair hearing if their builder cuts corners.

The biggest step policymakers could take would be requiring state licensing of home-building contractors. We’re not sure such a drastic step is necessary, but it at least deserves study. Speaker Dennis Bonnen and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick should instruct House and Senate committees to consider the matter during the interim period before the next legislative session, in 2021.

A more immediate fix would be to strengthen and improve municipal inspections of homes under construction. As the report noted, inspectors are overwhelmed with work, especially in high-growth areas. And there’s a double whammy — when demand is high, builders might hire subcontractors whose work they don’t know enough about.


In Fort Worth, Dickson found, more than 90 percent of inspections are farmed out to private companies. Standards must be heightened, and cities must do more to ensure rigorous inspections throughout the building process.

The state could also create better ways for consumers to log complaints against contractors. Overall complaints to the Texas Real Estate Commission are up, but it’s hard to trace them to specific companies, and those numbers cover all parts of the home-buying process. If there was a more rigorous system of identifying weak subcontractors, Texans would be better able to hold builders accountable.

For now, homeowners must watch out for themselves. The most important step to take is to hire an independent inspector to check the builder’s work before closing on the home.

Other precautions can be taken even before construction begins. For instance, checking a builder’s references and asking for tours of previous work may help identify problems to watch out for. Real estate agents can be a good source of information about which builders are reliable and responsive to complaints.

Lawmakers are understandably reluctant to create regulations and licensing that might impede Texas’ steady economic growth. But Texans making one of the most important purchases of their lives deserve more protection.


Consumer advocates say the system has been tilted toward builders for decades. It’s time for a more balanced approach.


Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article234304732.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Mark K]

This is a reflection of the fact that building codes were not implemented to protect the owner of the property. The original building (fire) codes were intended to protect the whole community from burning down.

The "public duty doctrine" says that the building official/department is responsible to the public and not to the individual property owner or tenants. This legal doctrine plays a key role in protecting building departments from liability for their failures. The idea is that if your duty is to the public it is not to the individuals and since there is no duty to the individuals there is no liability.

Or put another way if he building department had a duty to protect the individual property owner the department, building official, and inspectors could have liability.

Laws do vary from state to state but it appears that this doctrine is recognized in many states.

While building codes do have the side effect of protecting the property owner this is not their primary function.

 

[jar546]

I'm going to buck the system here with another controversial opinion based on my direct experience and what I have learned from talking with inspectors and plans examiners from across the country over the past 10 years or so. Again, this is an opinion, yours may vary.

First, I don't like the insinuation that private inspectors lessen the inspection process. Some municipalities won't ask for help when they need it because they think the private inspection companies are inferior and would rather fall behind instead of getting the help they need. I could also see that the municipal employed building department doesn't like others coming in behind them, checking on their work when they do re-inspections and regular inspections as the private inspectors have to look at the drawings in the field and know what gets approved. I think it's a fallacy that private inspectors from third party agencies are "lesser" inspectors and reviewers. I happen to find the complete opposite in my experiences. Here is why.

When you are the one and only man or woman in charge of an entire department or the only person in the department, there is no one watching over you and people in those situations tend to create their own world where what they say goes and that's it. You have complacency when you have employees in the same position for years with no one checking on you and the municipal employee attitude often, but now always has a tendency to make them feel infalible or even untouchable. Now before you get upset with this opinion so far, that is, of course not across the board and is not the situation with every single department but it does and can happen.

Here has been my experience on both side. As a former building official with all of the certifications who was an employee of a municipality, I was relied on to make the call and do my duty for every aspect of the building department. Other than the state auditing me every 3 years on commercial accessibility, I had the power to make all decisions and no one was coming in after me to second guess me. I had to pay extra close attention to accessibility because that was the one thing I would be audited on but could be more flexible on others situations if I needed to or was compelled to. As a private, third party inspector, there was a bit of a different feeling.

As a privately hired/contracted inspector to a municipality you often find yourself being one of several inspectors that may have to visit a jobsite. This keeps you on your toes because you know that other inspectors may be coming behind you so it is important to be more thorough. I'm not saying that municipal inspectors aren't thorough, I'm saying that when you know another inspector is coming in after you, you have to be on your game a little bit more. Now for some personal experiences.

When I cover other municipalities and have to go out to reinspect a previously failed inspection, I do find where I am inspecting things that weren't a code violation to begin with. That is always frustrating and puts me in an awkward position because both the contractor and myself know it is BS but I just do my thing and sign off. That does bother me. I hate the "do as I say because I am the inspector" attitude, especially when legitimate problems are missed. Here is an example. I was reinspecting a failed generator installation because the inspector did not see glue in one of the PVC fittings. Since I was there for a final and I am going to be the one signing off, I asked to have everything opened up so I could inspect. What I found that the inspector missed was:
*Penetrations from the meter base to ATS above the level of live parts without a sealing washer or sealing locknut.
*Even though the generator was right by the service with 2 new ground rods, he made them add a third ground rod for the generator. WTF at many levels.
*The neutrals and grounds were tied together at the generator and it is residential and not a separately derived system.
*The generator was undersized for the load it was wired for and needed load shedding/management.
*The installation did not match the plans, especially the way the load were distributed and neither panel was even close to the way it was drawn.

So, in this case, one thing was written up with is total BS, one is nitpicky, yet the important, big stuff was missed. I had to write all of it up even though I was expected to just look at the glue in the PVC fitting and move on.

Now listen, workload always has an impact and the busier you are, the less time you have so you really have to be on your game. I know this first hand. Still, there are others that may only have 4-5 inspections for the day and have more than adequate time to go through a jobsite. We are all in here together to ensure safe construction and none of us are infallible. We all make mistakes. Looking down at private, third party inspectors, however, is just plain wrong.

 

[Mark K]

Jar

If speaking the truth is bucking the system then maybe the system is broken

 

[cda]

Well said, no disputes

The public does not understand, buildings are built to minimum standards.

The city inspector is not always looking for straight lines or good paint jobs.

I think if I had a house built, I would probably have two different people look at every aspect of the build,,,

And still stuff would be missed.

 

[cda]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...buying-dream-home/ar-AAGt3Qo?ocid=mailsignout

 

[jar546]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...buying-dream-home/ar-AAGt3Qo?ocid=mailsignout

Eh, not sure the relevance here. If they had a mortgage, they would have known they were in a flood zone and been forced to purchase flood insurance. If they are not in a flood zone then I can't see it being anyone's fault. Flood maps are changing yet again (twice in 10 years after decades of no changes) and many people are going to find themselves in the special flood hazard area that were previously not.

On another take, if this was a new development and studies weren't done because the municipality does not have good development regulations, there could be some issues. Who knows.

 

[ADAguy]

Jar

If speaking the truth is bucking the system then maybe the system is broken

Broken? it seems to be getting that way. Institutional memory is getting lost with retirements every day. New inspectors often are lacking in trade knowledge and communication skills, city budgets are being strangled and then you have foreseeable Ghost Ships. Actual experience is critical to inspectors in training.