This could be a re-write from the Miami Herald after Hurricane Andrew went through Dade county in th 90's and the grand jury found the same thing. Lack of enforcement, not enough inspectors to do the job correctly.
This could be a re-write from the Miami Herald after Hurricane Andrew went through Dade county in th 90's and the grand jury found the same thing. Lack of enforcement, not enough inspectors to do the job correctly.
The majority of damage under Hurricane Andrew was to homes built from the mid seventies until 1992How about a lot of the structures have been existing for years and no program to add hurricane protection
The majority of damage under Hurricane Andrew was to homes built from the mid seventies until 1992
I worked in one subdivision in homestead for 6 month installing residential HVAC (1985). The developer was completing 12 homes every 5 days. I would be installing ductwork in the trusses while they where sheathing the roof and immediately drying it in and installing shingles. No way an inspector ever did a roof sheating/nailing inspection
During the 80's Dade county had it's problems within its building department
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/06/u...ons-about-they-were-built.html?pagewanted=all
In 1987, a four-month investigation of payoffs in the Miami-area building industry led to the indictment of a building inspector and of 24 developers, contractors and homeowners. In 1990, a grand jury found numerous irregularities in building inspections, including inspectors routinely away from their jobs during work hours and inadequate enforcement of laws regulating contractors.
Conarb
To clarify previous posting can you provide a reference for the statement :
"Protect the health and safety and increase the tax base"
I think the interest of creating a greater tax base was confused with the Federal Governments many programs to expand home ownership.
It does not mater what the UBC said or didn't say.
The California Constitution specifies that: "The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory purpose sought in order to be considered as a fee rather than a guise for a tax." A 1993 California Attorney General’s Opinion (No. 92-506) also addressed this issue and concluded that building permit fees cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing building inspection services, unless approved by a two-third vote of the electorate.
Building permit fees typically are based on the construction cost of a project. The higher the construction expenditures, the higher the permit fee, no matter the cost of providing the permit services. Based upon information provided to the Grand Jury by local jurisdictions, many of them appear to be profiting by collecting excessive building permit fees in violation of the Attorney General’s Opinion.
Attorney General’s Opinion.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-506.pdf