Throw it all out the window

[zigmark]

If there was political interest in a community to cease enforcement of all Building, Fire, Plumbing, Mechanincal and Energy Codes could they simply pass an ordinance and cease doing so? There is a madate to adopt the codes passed down from the State level but who ensures that it is done? And if it specifically not done then what? What if the jurisdiction adopts the codes but then simply has applicants sign a paper stating that they will comply with all of the requirements of the codes?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

ZIG

WA State.

 

[RJJ]

Yes! If the State has passed a mandated then the State will have to enforce it.

 

[Mark K]

It is up to the state to define the rules. It has been suggested that if the state is silent the local jurisdiction could adopt and enforce a building code.

If the state has adopted requirements that local jurisdictions are not following there appear to be two options. First the state could take action. Secondly a private entity who "had standing" could initiate a law suit (mandamus) to force the jurisdiction to do its job and comply with the states requirements. Mandamus proceedings may be more difficult if the jurisdiction adopts a code but takes no action to enforce it.

 

[conarb]

There was a proposal 10 years ago in Colorado to do just that, we had a discussion on it in the old ICC Bulletin Board, the legislation didn't pass but here it is, I logged into the current ICC forum and found the link back to the original Bulletin Board and researched to find a link to the the original 2003 bill, HOUSE BILL 03-1293, here is a relevant excerpt:

Originally Posted by Colorado Legislation b) ALL BUILDING INSPECTIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVATE BUILDING INSPECTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 29-27-106(1)(g);

© ANY PERSON ERECTING, CONSTRUCTING,RECONSTRUCTING, ALTERING, OR CHANGING THE USE OF ANY BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE IN THE STATE SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FROM A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEFORE BEGINNING SUCH PROJECT IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SO REQUIRES, AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT TO THE PERSON UPON PAYMENT OF A PERMIT FEE NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS; AND

(d) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING INSPECTORS CONFERRED IN SECTIONS 6-7-106(1), 8-14-102, 8-14-104, 30-28-114, HB03-1293-5-0-28-135, 30-28-205, 30-28-210, AND 31-23-218, C.R.S., AND ANY OTHER POWERS AND DUTIES CONFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING INSPECTORS SHALL BE SUSPENDED.¹

¹ http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/ine...le=1293_01.pdf

 

[RJJ]

I have not been back to the old ICC BB in years! Some of us had good times there and now we have a new frontier! Beam me up Jeff! Scottie is no longer with us!

 

[Msradell]

Actually what you're discussing is kind of how the federal ADA requirements are enforced. Some communities/states adopt their own requirements that basically mirror the federal standards, while other areas basically ignore the requirements. Where they are ignored, the DOJ is supposed to enforce them, but in reality very little enforcement takes place, except where a major violation or a violation by a major industry takes place.

 

[zigmark]

Conarb-

So, in these locations what happens with flood, fire and other types of homeowners insurance? How about lending, does it have any effect there? Since applicants would have to sign that they intend to construct everything to the building code the local jurisdiction would be alleviated from all liability concerning the buildings? Does anyone have any examples of where private citizens have sued a local jurisdiction in a similar situation?

I'm hoping to get some insight on impacts of making these types of changes short and long term if there are any.

Thanks

 

[steveray]

It looks like the CO legislation just privatizes it....it doesn't necessarily eliminate it......I would say it would eliminate any "town" liability for the buildings....

 

[Frank]

In most states there is little or no jurisdictional or inspector/official personal liability short of willful malfeasance.

More likely to be liable for uneven over enforcement than for under enforcement.

On the flip side I suspect that if the codes were eliminated that the insurance and mortgage industry would mandate some other form of certification/inspection.

It would also depend on if the concurrrent limitations of liability on builders were lifted.

Currently it met code and passed the county is a strong defense against negligence when somebody gets hurt.

If there were no codes and children die in house fire from electrical malfunction in house without arc fault and no sprinklers there would be a good case for liability against the builder. IF the state ammendments say these are not required, then the contractor is protected from liability for the deaths.