Fifteen Years, have we become complacent ?

[conarb]

I'm going back off topic, but:



Ho-ly bleep! Those are unimaginable numbers where I am. That's ~5% on top of the cost of the house! We don't build very many new ones now, but there would never be another house built in my town if our permit fees were even half of that.

Our new construction fees are sf-based, so $2.4 mil or $240K would cost you the same money.

4,000sf would cost:

$800 permit (4000 @ $0.20/sf)
$400 for a 1" water line
$400 for a sewer tap
No fee for residential plan review
No impact fees
No inspection fees

All done and out the door for $1600.00

The differences are crazy. I understand why they are, but it still seems a little nonsensical when you look at the numbers.

This survey rates quality of life dead last in the United States, read down and you will see it's due to lack of housing, and that's because they make it next to impossible to build with all the requirements and fees, building permits have become another illegal tax, and all of it occurs when you walk through the door of the building departments, you guys are the gatekeepers to the system. Of course, other taxes ares our carbon taxes which are to "save the planet", that is absurd since we are 4% of the planet and other countries like China and Russia are never going along, China may pretend to go along but only with particulate emissions, not CO2. I'm old and I've lived from a time that I could go into a building department with a set of plans stamped by an architect and engineer and walk out with a permit the same day and build a house for $6 a square foot, I didn't get $10 a square foot untill1968, my last was two years for permit as a remodel and $1,000 a square foot, then I find an article about affordable housing in a bad area that took several years to permit and they were estimating costs at $1,000 a foot. BTW, that $6 a foot was all union labor at living wages including pensions and healthcare.

I don't know what you guys as employees in the system can other than be whistleblowers when you see fees being used as illegal taxes.

 

[tmurray]

We charge 7$ per square meter here for a one or two family home. Other occupancies vary from 4.75$ to 9$ depending on the occupancy. The Eurig Estate case in Canada provided provinces and municipalities guidance on how fees must be structured; that we cannot charge more for a service than the cost to deliver it because that would make it a tax and subject to approval by the legislature. Keep in mind it can't cost more to deliver that service and only that service than the fee (on average), so we had to do assessments on each type of project to see the average time spent on project, resources used, etc. to determine what our costs were to deliver that service. I also do by-law enforcement. Building inspection fees are not permitted to subsidize the by-law enforcement part of my job.

 

[steveray]

This survey rates quality of life dead last in the United States, read down and you will see it's due to lack of housing, and that's because they make it next to impossible to build with all the requirements and fees, building permits have become another illegal tax, and all of it occurs when you walk through the door of the building departments, you guys are the gatekeepers to the system. Of course, other taxes ares our carbon taxes which are to "save the planet", that is absurd since we are 4% of the planet and other countries like China and Russia are never going along, China may pretend to go along but only with particulate emissions, not CO2. I'm old and I've lived from a time that I could go into a building department with a set of plans stamped by an architect and engineer and walk out with a permit the same day and build a house for $6 a square foot, I didn't get $10 a square foot untill1968, my last was two years for permit as a remodel and $1,000 a square foot, then I find an article about affordable housing in a bad area that took several years to permit and they were estimating costs at $1,000 a foot. BTW, that $6 a foot was all union labor at living wages including pensions and healthcare.

I don't know what you guys as employees in the system can other than be whistleblowers when you see fees being used as illegal taxes.

It's just next to impossible to build in California....While there are some places where it may be "difficult", I would bet that 80% of the country is pretty simple...

 

[mark handler]

Different departments have different costs and different departments figure the costs differently. Some include costs of the building space they occupy as if they were renting the space from the city, electrical and lighting costs, purchase and operation of vehicles, etcetera. Others include the public works/engineering and fire impacts. Some salaries are higher than others, there is no one way it figure it.

CA also has allowances for cities to add fees for department training ans a seismic "ffee".

 

[mtlogcabin]

Our impact fees for a SFR are the same regardless of the size of the home. So a $200,000.00 home or a $750,000.00 e the fee is the same

 

[conarb]

Using permit fees to generate revenue above the actual costs of running the department is not limited to California. It is happening in every single state in the country and has been for decades. Yes, that is technically illegal as "taxation without representation" but it is neither new or rare. At the same time, some smaller communities lose money and struggle just to provide the needed services. It is rare that the excess money above the cost of running a code enforcement department is called into question but I can assure you in at least one instance in Pennsylvania, the courts sided with the permit holder and limited the amount of fees an agency can charge. PA now has case law to back that up. The problem is that no one pushes back unless we are talking big money and due to the fact that no one wants to "rock the boat" by creating tension with an enforcement agency knowing that their project still needs to go through plan review, inspections and the issuing of a C of O.

I'm going back to Jeff's post because others have commented reinforcing what he has said, which is that building departments routinely violate the law and they have always done it that way, just like many of you point out contractors saying: "We have always done it that way", then you point out that is no excuse and brag how you nail them. Jeff goes on to say; "The problem is that no one pushes back unless we are talking big money and due to the fact that no one wants to "rock the boat", the problem is we have a gun to our heads to get the project built, owners are demanding we start, we have contract clauses with deadlines and penalties in them, we have owners with bank loans charging them interest every day the loan is out. At times I've wanted to fight legally but my owners know the legal costs will be more than they ever gain. With evidence coming out of Washington this country is rotten from the top down, Civil Service was supposed to take government employees out of the political process by creating lifetime employees that were immune to the political pressure of changing political climates, Civil Service has created the opposite effect, career employees are interested in maitaining the status quo to protect their jobs. Back when we were debating our Prop 13 on a jobsite, a tile setter said: "You guys think you are going to save money by limiting property taxes, the government emloyees are going to get theirs one way or the other, if this passes just wait until you go in to get a permit, what now costs a couple of hundred will cost a couple of thousand dollars." He was right except he drastically underestimated what the true costs would be, try a couple of hundred thousand for a house like we were worling on when he made that statement.

Jeff:

Thank you for being honest about the illegal activity in building departments and telling us that Pennsylvania has laws and cases similar to California, and thanks to others that have confirmed that other states and even countries have similar laws.

As to Mark Handler's comments about the costs of running building departments, what I see is the building departments are such cash cows that they are able to expand the scope of what they do to to increase their costs and fees to fund other departments that "do not make money".

 

[tmurray]

As to Mark Handler's comments about the costs of running building departments, what I see is the building departments are such cash cows that they are able to expand the scope of what they do to to increase their costs and fees to fund other departments that "do not make money".

If the law is that the fees recovered can not exceed the cost of running the department, then it is a bad law. I could just have one department for a whole municipality and charge basically whatever fees I wanted. The fees should not exceed the costs of delivering the service.

 

[conarb]

Our impact fees for a SFR are the same regardless of the size of the home. So a $200,000.00 home or a $750,000.00 e the fee is the same

Thanks Mountain Man, that means your impact fees are a pittance compared to ours, there is no such thing as a $200,000 home here, the permits and fees are more than that. I'll go on to say that this doesn't apply to all of Calfiornia, I'm telling you what is going on under One Bay Area, the unelected body that implements the United Nations Agenda 2030, a policy that among other things is moving humankind from rural areas into urban cores with public transit to get people out of cars.

Here is a copy of Agenda 2030 sustainable Development, reading through it makes it sound like idealistic unenforcable pablum, but this states the goals of the unelected bodies that write the rules that we live by and you enforce, we are the first in the nation to get this, you will get it at some time as well, so far the results are catastrophic with people sleeping on the streets, under freeways that are no-longer free, and the local creeks are full of the poor and addicted.

When you guys signed on to be building inspectors did you really sign up to be the enforcers of elitist urban planners from academia?

 

[conarb]

If the law is that the fees recovered can not exceed the cost of running the department, then it is a bad law. I could just have one department for a whole municipality and charge basically whatever fees I wanted. The fees should not exceed the costs of delivering the service.

T Murray:

What our law says is that we cannot increase taxes absent a vote of 2/3 or the electorate, we are allowed to charge fees for services rendered, if those fees exceed the cost of delivery of services then they become an illegal tax. As one example an AHJ has brought the Housing Department under the roof of the Building Department so the cash cow Building Department can fund the money losing Housing Department, it will be up to the courts to decide whether these practices are legal.

 

[SCBO1]

When you guys signed on to be building inspectors did you really sign up to be the enforcers of elitist urban planners from academia?

Conarb, I just needed a job after I was laid off from the construction company. Here in the mid-west we sometime are told by the weatherman to let the faucets drip in the winter, so the pipes don't freeze. In CA and other places you'd probably get fined by the water police.

 

[JCraver]

I'd bet most of us here have a similar story to your first sentence ^^^^^.

As for the other: the taxpayers in my town lose money on me every year - our fees are waaaaaaaay below the cost of performing the services we offer/provide. I think we should raise them so I can operate at even, but as long as we're not over charging I'm fine with doing the job.

 

[mark handler]

If the law is that the fees recovered can not exceed the cost of running the department, then it is a bad law. I could just have one department for a whole municipality and charge basically whatever fees I wanted. The fees should not exceed the costs of delivering the service.

The building division "may" include legal fees as need. It may include city clerk fees as it relates to the muni code and interface with city council. Departments may need to work together on "the services".
I just came out of a three hour meeting with the cities"contract"acities"contract" attorneys. They are on contract, the city pays, per hour. Those fees are compensated through fees.

 

[SCBO1]

From time to time I will be asked "what's my inspection fee charge?" The building permit fee is supposed to cover the inspections, I assume that some may charge a BP fee and on top of that, and charge for each inspection. We go off the valuation that the applicant writes on the application. On occasion I question the figure, and got this once:

"I had an old 200-amp FPE breaker box laying around and uncle Joe did the wiring, so it was only going to cost me a $100.00. It cost the city more for me to go do the inspection than what we collected. So we do have some minimum estimated cost. The deck guy's are all over the place with cost valuations.

Does anyone use the ICC BVD?

 

[JCraver]

<snip>

Does anyone use the ICC BVD?

I looked at it here, the last time my boss asked about raising our prices. If we used it, our fees would have went up something like 200%. That was the end of that.

 

[conarb]

The building division "may" include legal fees as need. It may include city clerk fees as it relates to the muni code and interface with city council. Departments may need to work together on "the services".
I just came out of a three hour meeting with the cities"contract"acities"contract" attorneys. They are on contract, the city pays, per hour. Those fees are compensated through fees.

I disagree, based upon the decisions I've read about, to my knowledge none of the cases have gone to appeal where precedent can be established, but as far as I understand it the department is funded by taxes like all other departments within the jurisdiction, all you can charge me for are fees that cover the costs of rendering the services you provide for me, not the next guy, and not general overhead, and that does not include the costs of running your entire department. I recall one case that may provide guidance, Stanford University entered into a cost plus contract with the Navy to do some research, they billed the Navy for not only their reasearch but a percentage of the overhead of the department that conducted the research, the courts found for the Navy on the basis that if Stanford had not performed the Navy contract the department would still have been there incuring the overhead expenses that they were trying to pass on the the Navy, Stanford could not bill the Navy for it's fixed overhead, only the overhead specifically attributable to the Navy contract that was over and above the fixed overhead of the department. Stanford got a real black eye on this case as they should have.

In Mark's case above his time spent with the City Clerk and/or the City Council relating to working with other departments are attributable to general city policy funded by taxes, if they were discussing issues or policies directly related to me then they could be charged to my fees, the issue here is to segregate time funded by taxes and time funded by fees.

 

[Phil]

Conarb, said:
Back when we were debating our Prop 13 on a jobsite, a tile setter said: "You guys think you are going to save money by limiting property taxes, the government emloyees are going to get theirs one way or the other, if this passes just wait until you go in to get a permit, what now costs a couple of hundred will cost a couple of thousand dollars." He was right except he drastically underestimated what the true costs would be, try a couple of hundred thousand for a house like we were worling . . ..


Prop 13 passed in the late 70s. A 60,000 home then is probably worth over 700,000 today. Plus, society has evolved and there are more regulations today than 50 years ago. Prop 13 reduced government's income, so more and/or higher fees makes sense. Perhaps, the city doesn't have the resources to subsidize permitting and inspection. Also, I think the costs you cite are an outlier and don't represent most of all California.

 

[conarb]

Phil:

First, if you expect us to obey the laws you enforce we expect you to obey the laws, like it or not the law says that you cannot collect more than the cost of delivery of services, you are stealing from the rest of us if you don't obey that law.

Also, I think the costs you cite are an outlier and don't represent most of all California.

My costs represent the area of Calfiornia that is under One Bay Area, this is the first area of the nation to adopt the United Nations Agenda 2030, the reason I make such a point of this is it is coming to the rest of the nation eventually and I'm warning you guys to fight it when they try to adopt these policies in your area, code words are Green, Sustainable Development, Vision or Our Vision, there is Agenda 21 standing for policy to be implemented by the end of this century, Agenda 2030 standing for goals to be implmented by 2030, and Vision 2050 , The WBCSD’s cornerstone Vision 2050 report calls for a new agenda for business laying out a pathway to a world in which nine billion people can live well, and within the planet’s resources, by mid-century. There is going to be a meeting next month in Switzerland wherein they will formulate policy in their Vision for 2050, but the one that affects us most is Agenda 2030 since it is the sustainable Development program that affects building. Here is their Vision for 2050:

Sustainable City
How cities perform will impact not just the living
conditions of the over six billion people who will be living in cities in the
year 2050, but also the condition of ecosystems and economy globally. More and
more cities are accelerating efforts to becoming a true “eco-city, “green city”
or “sustainable city”.


ICLEI offers:

• Leadership in the Local Agenda 21 movement for
  participatory governance
  
• Networks such as the global Eco-cities
  Network
  
• Capacity building
  
• Systems and tools for sustainability
  management, e.g. ecoBudget®
  
• Advocacy on behalf of local
  governments
  
• ICLEI triennial World Congress and regional
  conventions

There are close to 8 billion people on the earth now, they want us to cram 6 billion into urban core cities, the ICLEI of which your city may or may not be a member, is planning an earth to hold 9 billion people, you will be the enforcers of these codes as we relocate people from rural to urban environments, and even poor countries to rich countries, their policy is called Communitarianism, don't believe me? Open up your ICC Green Codes and read about Green Points being awarded to homes with front porches and glass in front doors so all people can "commune". I think we should fight this with everything we've got, look at the Bay Area to see where this is all going.

 

[mark handler]

... then it is a bad law. ...

Yes it is a bad law, like most ballot box laws, written by people that think they know what is good for all, because it helps them. Then they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot for a vote. Voted on by people that think they know what the ballot bill says, only later to discover it's flaws.


BUT: The only way for America's young adults to change gun laws is through the ballot box

 

[conarb]

Yes it is a bad law, like most ballot box laws, written by people that think they know what is good for all, because it helps them. Then they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot for a vote. Voted on by people that think they know what the ballot bill says, only later to discover it's flaws.


BUT: The only way for America's young adults to change gun laws is through the ballot box

Good and bad is a value judgment, in my opinion any law that reduces taxes is a good law, it's governments that create war killing people, and take money from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who voted for them, in the process skimming money off the top for themselves. We are living under an academia that has adopted post-modernism, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad, the only good is the collective good, for a good eplanation read the Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, here is his 12 minute explanation, We are so far down the path of Cultural Marxism that I think it's too late for this country.

When it comes to law the only "good law" is constitutional law, for instance I see ADA as bad law becuase it violates our constitutional rights, in particular the 1st Amendment Freeedom of Association, there is a way the constitution allows us to do it, it's called amending the constitution, not pressure groups buying legislation from legislators, like we all saw here whan the Coalition of Fire Sprinkler Manufacturers bought their mandate, and some here took the bribes.

As to gun rights I have never been a gun owner and don't like them; however, we have a constitutional right to have them under the 2nd Amendment, if you want to get rid of gun rights amend the constitution. I've changed my position on guns, as far as we've fallen into Socialism people are going to need guns to protect themselves from the government, which was the purpose of the Bill of Rights. In my case building departments have stolen at least a million dollars from me since 1978 in illegal taxes since the California Constitution says if the fees I've been charged exceed the cost of delivery of services they are a tax, I understand that cities are bankrupt and need money to pay their pension obligations but that does not justify violating the law, AHJs have stolen far more from me that all the criminals in this country put together.

BTW, T Murray, here is Jordan Peterson. your best academic talking on your "Premier".

 

[tmurray]

...
BTW, T Murray, here is Jordan Peterson. your best academic talking on your "Premier".

Prime minister.

Premiers run the provinces (equivalent would be governors...sorta)

 

[conarb]

Prime minister.

Premiers run the provinces (equivalent would be governors...sorta)

T Murray:

Thanks for the information, I should know after all the business I have done with Canada, the current trade dispute would have really hurt me, for may years I bought the bulk of my lumber through a broker from Canada, since the NAFTA went into effect I bought all of my windows and many doors from Canada.

What do you think of what Professor Peterson has to say about your current "Prime Minister"? Your codes are not the only things that are far supperior to ours.

 

[tmurray]

T Murray:

Thanks for the information, I should know after all the business I have done with Canada, the current trade dispute would have really hurt me, for may years I bought the bulk of my lumber through a broker from Canada, since the NAFTA went into effect I bought all of my windows and many doors from Canada.

What do you think of what Professor Peterson has to say about your current "Prime Minister"? Your codes are not the only things that are far supperior to ours.

No Worries. I get educated on other's political systems often enough too.

It's interesting to hear professor Peterson talk about the %50 female cabinet promise. Many political analysts at the time felt the prime minister actually made a major mistake in this statement as he had some very talented members who were female that could not become ministers because he was already at %50. Ultimately, the statement was sexist.

However, when he and others talk about liberal professors "brainwashing" students I always find that hard to agree with. This statement presumes that people are not intelligent enough to have their own opinions separate from those that are educating them.

I did enjoy his statement about going to a protest about climate change doesn't mean you are taking it seriously. I completely agree with that.

 

[conarb]

No Worries. I get educated on other's political systems often enough too.


It's interesting to hear professor Peterson talk about the %50 female cabinet promise. Many political analysts at the time felt the prime minister actually made a major mistake in this statement as he had some very talented members who were female that could not become ministers because he was already at %50. Ultimately, the statement was sexist.


However, when he and others talk about liberal professors "brainwashing" students I always find that hard to agree with. This statement presumes that people are not intelligent enough to have their own opinions separate from those that are educating them.


I did enjoy his statement about going to a protest about climate change doesn't mean you are taking it seriously. I completely agree with that.

The scariest thing I see about our 2016 election wasn't The Donald or Hillary, but the huge support Bernie, an avowed socialist, received, it's always been the case that the young are more liberal, in fact there is an old saying: "If you are not a liberal when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when you are older you have no brain", that was the case in my day too, but the support Bernie received is scary, particularly in light of the collapsing socialist societies worldwide.


You have also done your version or medical care a lot better than we have, in fact many of you came down here for care when we had private care, most of my Canadian friends worked for companies that provided medical insurance allowing them to come here and receive private care, they stopped to visit at times when down here, as it is here now when Obamacare came into effect one prescription went from $330 a month to $733 a month, I went to Canada and bought the same thing for $88 a month. I have gone political here but the same thing apples to codes, ADA is a disaster here, from what you've told us your version of ADA is very reasonable so I have to assume that it's a similar situation with other codes, and just look at the residential fire sprinkler fraud, the best report on the effectiveness was the Canadian National Mortage Company report that I cited many times back before this enormous cost was imposed upon us. What gets into our codes are the methods and products that commercial or environmental interests pay to get into our codes.


Our codes have become a huge bureaucracy, and now our medical system has become a huge bureaucracy, all but one of my doctors has retired or just plain quit, I go to see him and instead of going to his office with a nurse and receptionist, I now go into a huge building owned by the UCSF medical school, I wait at a long counter staffed by obese minorities, after signing in there I go to an upper floor again to encounter a few desks of obese minorities, then I sit and wait to see a resident doctor (in training), usually from a foreign country that I can't understand, it's all "make work" just like building departments where we jump through hoops for an average of 7 years. Back in the 50s and 60s if I came into the building department with a set of plans for a new home, stamped by an architect and engineer, I walked out that day with a permit

 

[tmurray]

I think one of the major factors that have influenced the building inspection industry, at least here, is liability. People aren't willing to take responsibility for their decisions and end up suing us. Even when we win, it costs a fortune, so we have to idiot proof everything.

We recently had a situation where a builder was constructing a single family residence. The lot was in-filled, so they had to get an engineer for the soils and build an engineered pad for the building. All of this went fine and they placed the foundation on the pad. Then, they decided to connect to the sewer lateral serving that lot. Well golly-gee, the foundation is too low and that bathroom in the basement won't work. Now they should have taken an elevation shot off the lateral to dictate where the foundation needed to be, but they didn't. Instead I get a phone call that they will be suing us because we accepted the foundation.