Do Some Businesses Just Get a Pass?

[jar546]

I was recently back in Pennsylvania for a funeral. I spent the first 46 years of my life there, minus the four years I was away in the Marine Corps. My entire construction background, spanning contractor, inspector, plans examiner, and building official roles, was built in Pennsylvania until I moved to Florida about 13 years ago and began my career there.

Every time I go back, something catches my attention. What stood out this time was how many long-established businesses, some around for generations, seem to be getting a pass when it comes to building code compliance. Especially when it comes to accessibility.

I remember the political pressure. When I was working there, it was not uncommon to be told, directly or indirectly, to leave certain businesses alone. The message was clear. These places were good for the community; they had been there forever, or they knew someone at City Hall. The rules were flexible depending on who you were and how long you had been around.

That dynamic doesn’t seem to have changed.

What I saw this trip was blatant. I visited a number of businesses, especially restaurants, and it was obvious some had undergone recent work. New restrooms that didn’t come close to meeting accessibility standards. Commercial kitchen hoods without proper makeup air created so much negative pressure that people had to lean into the front door just to get in. Standing outside waiting for our name to be called, I watched person after person struggle to open the door. That is not just a nuisance. That is a real accessibility concern and a potential safety issue.

I also noticed something else. In boroughs, townships, and cities where third-party agencies are in charge of the building departments, there seems to be no real enforcement happening. It is as if some places are stuck in a time warp where modern codes and enforcement do not apply. You can almost hear the old excuse: they have been here forever.

So I am not going to list every example. That is not the point of this thread. The point is to ask:

Is this something you see in your jurisdiction? Are you dealing with pressure to look the other way when well-connected, long-standing businesses do work? Or does this only surface every now and then?

Would like to hear from others across different states. Is this just a small town issue, or do you see it in larger cities too?

 

[TheCommish]

I feel fortunate that pressure to look the other way are not put on my office. Maybe because early in my career I had to point out to the administration that the gazebo the had just installed violated both the riser hight and accessibility codes, which was done in writing and the local paper picked up the story.

On the other hand my municipal just had a 45K evaluation done, and many ot the things that have been pointed out in the past as being out of compliance in the past still need addressing.

I do find the number of facilities when doing renovations still beleave that "accommodations" are allowed, rather than compliance, or have no consideration for accessibility from the parking lot to the building, put obstacles in the accessible route, or are unaware of the obstacles they put in walkways are a violation both for accessibility, an able-bodied.

 

[jar546]

On the other hand my municipal just had a 45K evaluation done, and many ot the things that have been pointed out in the past as being out of compliance in the past still need addressing.

Was this a $45k evaluation for zoning across the municipality?

 

[tmurray]

Recently, our department took a member of our legislative assembly to court for non-compliance with fire regulations on one of his developments, so no.

We are looking at how we can introduce legal protections for building officials to insulate them this type of undue influence at a provincial level. I would be interested to see what states have done in this regard.

 

[TheCommish]

Was this a $45k evaluation for zoning across the municipality?

ADA required transition plan

 

[steveray]

I believe it is fully intentional in some places and indirectly intentional in others and some places just don't get it. If you get an awesome building department that catches everything, the best thing that happens is nothing and it might take a little longer and you are going to get complaints... If you cut staff and they feel pressure to get stuff done skimp on plan review and miss some stuff, you MIGHT get sued, but that does not happen very often, and you are going to get complaints especially if it gets caught in the field....... If you do crap for review and crap for inspections and never find any problems, stuff gets done quicker you/ they don't generally get complaints....So.........Plus just the continuing race to the bottom if your area does not value code compliance...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In this state, building officials are employed by municipalities. (We have counties, but they exist primarily on paper as an historical footnote, we have no county governmental functions.) Building officials are, by statute, appointed for terms of four years. Within those four-year terms, a building official can be removed from office only for cause, and only after a formal, public hearing.

However -- there is nothing about re-appointment. The best BO can be put out of office if the appointing officer (typically the mayor) doesn't want to reappoint him or her. I have seen it happen to multiple BOs, who were not reappointed for a new term because they were doing their job, and not giving breaks to the favored pals and relatives of the politicians. One of those was my former boss at my last position. The new guy is giving away the store -- but the politicians are happy.

As steveray wrote, it's a race to the bottom.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Recently, our department took a member of our legislative assembly to court for non-compliance with fire regulations on one of his developments, so no.

We are looking at how we can introduce legal protections for building officials to insulate them this type of undue influence at a provincial level. I would be interested to see what states have done in this regard.

You might want me to give me a call ....

 

[arwat23]

Is this something you see in your jurisdiction? Are you dealing with pressure to look the other way when well-connected, long-standing businesses do work? Or does this only surface every now and then?

I have a client who has an odd relationship with the city. While the inspectors were good at enforcing building code (client thinks they can do whatever then is shocked when an inspector calls them out), the city isn't very good at much else with this specific site.

New construction. Been about a decade since they broke ground on it. They've been occupying the completed building for a couple of years now, but there's been no CO issued. The permits are still active ("issued", not "expired" or "final" like it should be) and I have no idea the last time a Fire Inspector visited the site. Client has undone a lot of accessibility elements. The theory around my office is they pulled some strings in city hall, but that's just an (educated) guess. The client isn't exactly a small business and has pulled stings in the past to get what they want.

Other than this specific situation, my local jurisdictions seems to do a good job with forcing businesses to follow what codes say, especially with accessibility. Idk what happened, but over the past year, the local AHJs have gotten REALLY good at calling out missing path of travel improvements, something that was lacking in prior years.

 

[Yikes]

I have a client who has an odd relationship with the city. While the inspectors were good at enforcing building code (client thinks they can do whatever then is shocked when an inspector calls them out), the city isn't very good at much else with this specific site.

New construction. Been about a decade since they broke ground on it. They've been occupying the completed building for a couple of years now, but there's been no CO issued. The permits are still active ("issued", not "expired" or "final" like it should be) and I have no idea the last time a Fire Inspector visited the site. Client has undone a lot of accessibility elements. The theory around my office is they pulled some strings in city hall, but that's just an (educated) guess. The client isn't exactly a small business and has pulled stings in the past to get what they want.

Other than this specific situation, my local jurisdictions seems to do a good job with forcing businesses to follow what codes say, especially with accessibility. Idk what happened, but over the past year, the local AHJs have gotten REALLY good at calling out missing path of travel improvements, something that was lacking in prior years.

In California, all it takes is one Unruh lawsuit to turn skeptical owners into believers.