Yea, im well aware of what's required in today's code, its the 20-30 year old stuff thats a pita.. Anyone who tries to legalize something with a heavily pitched slab floor isn't gonna like me much. Poor workmanship is an exact fit. The definition states plumb, level and square. But those older codes.. ugh..
I know this is primarily building inspectors and such. And this kinda goes off topic. But Dillon's rule makes this whole environmental code unconstitutional unless adopted by the state as a statewide building code.
The more I know, the more I understand, the better I can interact with reasonable inspectors and such.
In St Loius, too often, I get the response "we don't do the law here", "we don't do the law at this level" or similar absolute refusal to follow state and federal law from inspectors and city officials. This year I even heard it in my Property Tax Appeal. A direct contradiction with well established Juris Prudence that ALL Government people MUST obey the Jurisprudence of the courts UNLESS state law grants them a variance.
A funny story, probably one of the best buildings built in St Loius... Children's hospital St Louis (right next to Barnes Jewish hospital) they replaced the hospital with a new tower. Some of the floors, the nurses had fun showing the project manager, the GC and the director of the hospital that if you put the IV tree (with wheels) in certain places in certain rooms. The IV tree will roll across the room, out the door and across the hall. Since "perfectly plumb" is a goal and not a definition. What grade/pitch is considered acceptable for a home? A building? A hospital? And for those western states that EVERY house is a slab house, do they have to "insulate" then "level" then "cement board" every tile floor? and I am assuming this is the "environmental IBC" which by definition is Unconstitutional in Missouri unless adopted as a state code by the legislature (see below).
As I have noted certain rules in other IBC codes, there are more than a few "rules" that are flat out "unconstitutional" as various rules in the codes conflicts with Missouri Constitution or Missouri Statute. Such as the rules granting inspectors the right to warrantless code searches/inspections, explitely banned by Camara v Municipal Court of San Francisco and hundreds of progeny. Camara was arrested for misdemeanor refusing the code inspector a warrantless search of his unit. SCOTUS ruled that since a man home is his castle, the 4th amendment is strictly enforced for a code/building inspections for the building and the curtilage except for police hot pursuit or a major emergency such as gas leak or meth lab threatening the neighborhood.
For this to be constitutional in Missouri, they would either have to get Missouri to adopt the code by state statute or prove a compelling health and safety issue. Bazeyiff v city of st loius puts the burden of proof on the municipal government adopting the code to prove its a substantial health or safety issue.
Article I, Bill of Rights (e.g., §§ 2, 10): Guarantees due process and limits governmental overreach. Cities cannot create laws outside their legitimate police power (health, safety, welfare) without violating constitutional protections.
RSMo § 71.010: Cities may “enact ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of the state, for the good government, peace and order of the city, and the health, benefit, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants.” This statute is key — it ties the validity of city ordinances directly to
health, safety, and welfare. Anything beyond that can be challenged as ultra vires (outside their authority).
Having another go with the local code officer. He wrote me a letter in May. I took care of what he was bitching about. But his complaint was "unconstitutionally vauge". I called and told him to let me know if all is good. Often, I get a second letter telling me I did nothing or giving me a whole new list to do... and if I don't solve the problem there will be further action.. In this case (there is a personal vendetta by the Commissioner against me), I got a letter from the court three (3) months later accusing me of failure to appear. But I was never served, and my response to the first letter renders the first letter resolved unless he complains which he did not.