Don’t leave me hanging ... finish the sentence. How is it done.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
City dept. trying to enforce federal access codes
- Thread starter Yikes
- Start date
mark handler
SAWHORSE
If the city Housing Authority is funding the project, as implied by the first post, they do have the right to impose a requirement that the project meet Federal guidelines. Just as I, a building official, have been asked by the city to oversee a city project, the building department may have been empowered to oversee this project, by the city. agency.
Can they require it as a building department, no, can they as a lenders rep, yes.
Don't get me wrong the forum is great But this thread is Just like most post/threads on the forum, we do not have the whole or back stories. Not enough information.
We all make assumptions based on our preconceived ideas, thoughts experiences and fractured memories.
Can they require it as a building department, no, can they as a lenders rep, yes.
Don't get me wrong the forum is great But this thread is Just like most post/threads on the forum, we do not have the whole or back stories. Not enough information.
We all make assumptions based on our preconceived ideas, thoughts experiences and fractured memories.
ADAguy
Registered User
Thank you, first time I have heard it. Similar to "pulling the wool?"
When the requirement is a contractual obligation the City could be compelled to issue a building permit but the City could in civil court claim a breach of contract.
If the requirement was a condition of planning approval the City could take action based on a violation of the conditions of the approval. Here again the Building Department would be a passive participant to the dispute.
This is another situation where the building department needs to clearly identify the legal basis for an imposed requirement
When inspectors and jurisdictions do not feel the need to justify the legal authority for their actions you empower rogue individuals and create the conditions for abuses. I suggest that such situations also make it easier for corruption to occur.
If the requirement was a condition of planning approval the City could take action based on a violation of the conditions of the approval. Here again the Building Department would be a passive participant to the dispute.
This is another situation where the building department needs to clearly identify the legal basis for an imposed requirement
When inspectors and jurisdictions do not feel the need to justify the legal authority for their actions you empower rogue individuals and create the conditions for abuses. I suggest that such situations also make it easier for corruption to occur.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
I agree. One word: Justification
While your lament and woe associated with rogue inspectors must have happened to you, seriously rogue is rare. Almost every inspector has a supervisor. Almost every supervisor has a supervisor.
My AHJ might have performed a half million inspections in any given year. That's just a rough guess. I suppose that 30% had a bogus correction mixed in with valid stuff. That's 150,000 bullshite corrections. Some inspections missed a dozen corrections and some none. So let's give each one of them one missed correction. 500,000 missed corrections.
In one year:
Well then if we did a half million inspections, another half million were jobs that were never permitted or inspected. That cuts down on the number of bullshite corrections and the missed corrections has eclipsed one million....probably close to five million. Remember, there's only about 150 inspectors working here and there's thousands working out there.
In the last twenty years a billion corrections were not written. So Mark I ask you, Who is getting over on whom?
Last edited:
If we accept the percentages presented above that is too many. The fact that other violations may not have been identified is irrelevant.
All jurisdictions should recognize this as a problem and should work to minimize the number of improper corrections. My sense is that this is not the case. If the problem is due to ignorance then the inspector should be educated.
All jurisdictions should recognize this as a problem and should work to minimize the number of improper corrections. My sense is that this is not the case. If the problem is due to ignorance then the inspector should be educated.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I often find when I am discussing what I think might be wrong with a contractor, they jump to get it fixed. I offer to look it up and tell them for sure if something is wrong, but they say don't bother, we will do it either way. Some do this because it improves the construction and they take pride in their work, others because waiting on the answer is going to cost them money and it is cheaper to just do it, rather than wait for me to double check. Either way, it is their decision.
Sorry, A lot of the time, we rely on RDPs or other certified professionals to attest to something meeting a certain standard or requirement. Quite a while ago, our courts recognized that it would be prohibitive to require skilled professionals in each discipline related to construction, so most smaller municipalities rely on the owner's professionals where they do not employ their own.
Yikes
Gold Member
In my particular case, it is not an inspector going "rogue". It is a city that, when acting as a distributor of federal funds for housing projects, had previously certified to the Feds that those projects met UFAS, when in fact they did not. The fault lies with the architects, but it's the city that has the deep pockets and got sued. As a result, they gone overboard in the other direction. In addition to having the usual CBC 11A/11B plan checks, they now route the plans to their housing department for a CASp to check it for 11A/11B/FHS/UFAS compliance, EVEN ON PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT FEDERALLY FUNDED.
So, first of all, they are not using the right codes/regs. Secondly, because they have an independent CASp looking at it, the CASp issues their own opinions/interpretations, and the housing department accepts those subjective interpretations as if written in stone.
For example, their CASp is of the opinion that in an accessible dwelling unit, the code ought to require the kitchen range burners to be max 34" high. This is not true; this is a misapplication of the term "work surface". Their building department interprets the code correctly. If the city were a funder on this project, they could request whatever kind of range they wanted as a condition of accepting funds. But as plan checkers only, they should not be given to subjective interpretations of regulations that are outside their authority to enforce.
So, it is not one individual that has gone rouge. It is a "once bitten, twice shy" city that has made a series of decisions to protect themselves, and those decisions have taken the process down the wrong path.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
They were sued by not properly exercising their legal responsibilities, so their response is to not properly exercise their legal responsibilities, albeit in the other direction. Got it.
ADAguy
Registered User
History: the CASp law is for "Voluntary" certification (of ADA experts). It was initially discussed as to this possibly happening. CASps were to observe and report, determinations were for the AHJ's or courts to decide.