# Fifteen Years, have we become complacent ?



## cda




----------



## conarb

We still put styrofoam in buildings, lower class young people still go to rock music "concerts" and drink, in ways it has become worse as they now take drugs as well as drink at these gatherings, like Ghost Ship.


----------



## fatboy

wow.......did not know that it was restricted to "lower class" young people...........


----------



## Rick18071

Hey, I did that when young but not in lower class!


----------



## fatboy

my point........


----------



## cda

fatboy said:


> wow.......did not know that it was restricted to "lower class" young people...........




Yea, have you priced a concert lately


----------



## conarb

[/quote]569468406





Rick18071 said:


> Hey, I did that when young but not in lower class!



Most of the kids of upper middle class to upper class people go to hear music at opera houses and symphony halls, some go to smaller venues for chamber music.  Hopefully they are still smart enough to not take drugs which are part of the lower class music scenes.  After the Ghost Ship fire so much attention was given to the parents of many of those killed, my thought at the time was that had the parents properly educated their kids they wouldn't be listening to that kind of music and taking drugs, have you every heard of a fire at an event where Beethoven or Chopin was being performed?  There was a famous one in 1749 when Handle's Royal Fireworks premiered and the new concert hall built specifically for it burned down, I guess they didn't have fire inspectors in those days, but at least there wasn't styrofoam to burn either:



			
				Classic FM said:
			
		

> The build up was huge; top-class concerts open to the general public were virtually unheard of at the time and excitement was so great that tickets were sold for a public rehearsal of the music in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens. Around 12,000 people flocked to the performance in Green Park in April 1749, resulting in a traffic jam that closed London Bridge for several hours.
> 
> Despite the frenzy of preparation, no one had factored in the possibility of bad weather. So naturally it rained, most of the fireworks refused to light, and the few that did light caused the staging to catch fire. There’s no record of what Handel made of it all, although a contemporary, Horace Walpole, reported that the evening was 'pitiful and ill-conducted' but 'very little mischief was done, and but two persons killed’.¹



  One of the major policies of the communists is a class-free society, and of course egalitarianism to destroy our meritocracy wherein all people are able to climb the socioeconomic ladder based upon their merit and not birth like the European aristocracies.   Here is what Wikipedia has to say about class in America:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Most definitions of class structure group people according to wealth, income, education, type of occupation, and membership in a specific subculture or social network. Most of the social classes entirely ignore the existence of parallel Black, Hispanic and minorities societies. Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson, Joseph Hickey, and James Henslin have proposed class systems with six distinct social classes. These class models feature an upper or capitalist class consisting of the rich and powerful, an upper middle class consisting of highly educated and affluent professionals, a middle class consisting of college-educated individuals employed in white-collar industries, a lower middle class composed of semi-professionals with typically some college education, a working class constituted by clerical and blue collar workers whose work is highly routinized, and a lower class divided between the working poor and the unemployed underclass.²




¹ http://www.classicfm.com/composers/handel/music/george-frideric-handel-music-royal-fireworks/

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States


----------



## JPohling

so much wrong with the above post..............not sure where to begin


----------



## Rick18071

I go to a Oprah house for rock concerts all the time. mcohjt.com And I take lots of drugs, most are prescriptions.

Do you think we should be in a class system?


----------



## cda

Rick18071 said:


> I go to a Oprah house for rock concerts all the time. mcohjt.com And I take lots of drugs, most are prescriptions.
> 
> Do you think we should be in a class system?




Is that just to deal with work??

If so can I join you.


----------



## my250r11

Still a rock junkie, been passing drug test for 25 yrs, have seen Ozzy, ZZ, Zombie, ect. just seen Lita ford again & Five Finger, Volbeat just last year.

Do work for the city so maybe considered lower class.


----------



## cda

Low class

But

Over paid


----------



## tmurray

569468406

Most of the kids of upper middle class to upper class people go to hear music at opera houses and symphony halls, some go to smaller venues for chamber music.  Hopefully they are still smart enough to not take drugs which are part of the lower class music scenes.  After the Ghost Ship fire so much attention was given to the parents of many of those killed, my thought at the time was that had the parents properly educated their kids they wouldn't be listening to that kind of music and taking drugs, have you every heard of a fire at an event where Beethoven or Chopin was being performed?  There was a famous one in 1749 when Handle's Royal Fireworks premiered and the new concert hall built specifically for it burned down, I guess they didn't have fire inspectors in those days, but at least there wasn't styrofoam to burn either:



  One of the major policies of the communists is a class-free society, and of course egalitarianism to destroy our meritocracy wherein all people are able to climb the socioeconomic ladder based upon their merit and not birth like the European aristocracies.   Here is what Wikipedia has to say about class in America:




¹ http://www.classicfm.com/composers/handel/music/george-frideric-handel-music-royal-fireworks/

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States[/QUOTE]
Thanks for letting me know what my generation does. I was very surprised to hear that rich people don't go to parties and do drugs. My experience is quite the opposite, but maybe that's just me.

Having been to these parties, I can personally inform you there are people there from any socio-economic background and ethnicity... and most of them are doing drugs. Personally, I drink on occasion, but have never done anything else. 

You might be showing your age somewhat here...


----------



## conarb

T Murray said:
			
		

> You might be showing your age somewhat here...



You are right, at 82 I come from a much better age, I've watched things go downhill and it's painful, much of the world sees us as a corrupt society wanting to dominate the world with our New World Order, when the Pussy Riot thing hit Russia I thought Putin was going to go crazy thinking our corrupt culture was permeating his country.  Why do you think theocracies hate us so? Many countries and their religions think we should be destroyed, just look at what's happening to Europe right now, with Sub Saharan Africans and Middle Eastern Muslims invading destroying the culture of the Enlightenment, draining the entitlement societies into bankruptcy.  Here I thought that with a change in administrations we could clean house in the Justice Department and get rid of this unconstitutional ADA thing, come to find out the Justice Department is loaded with corrupt lifetime civil servants, it has much bigger problems than ADA.  The FBI is also part of the Justice Department, *just look at the corruption there*, and here I thought the major corruption in this country was at the local level like Building Departments illegally charging fees and diverting them to other uses.


----------



## jar546

conarb said:


> You are right, at 82 I come from a much better age, I've watched things go downhill and it's painful, much of the world sees us as a corrupt society wanting to dominate the world with our New World Order, when the Pussy Riot thing hit Russia I thought Putin was going to go crazy thinking our corrupt culture was permeating his country.  Why do you think theocracies hate us so? Many countries and their religions think we should be destroyed, just look at what's happening to Europe right now, with Sub Saharan Africans and Middle Eastern Muslims invading destroying the culture of the Enlightenment, draining the entitlement societies into bankruptcy.  Here I thought that with a change in administrations we could clean house in the Justice Department and get rid of this unconstitutional ADA thing, come to find out the Justice Department is loaded with corrupt lifetime civil servants, it has much bigger problems than ADA.  The FBI is also part of the Justice Department, *just look at the corruption there*, and here I thought the major corruption in this country was at the local level like Building Departments illegally charging fees and diverting them to other uses.



Since when did this thread started by showing a nightclub fire get turned into a political and socioeconomic one?  We are here for building codes not politics and I have posted about this before.  Knock it off....again.  There are plenty of other sites to discuss politics, moral values and socioeconomic behaviors.  Not here.


----------



## conarb

jar546 said:


> Since when did this thread started by showing a nightclub fire get turned into a political and socioeconomic one?  We are here for building codes not politics and I have posted about this before.  Knock it off....again.  There are plenty of other sites to discuss politics, moral values and socioeconomic behaviors.  Not here.



Jeff:

The problem is the International Codes have gone well beyond health and safety and are now political, particularly here in California where building departments are illegally diverting money to other uses, we are averaging 7 years to get a permit to build a house in the Bay Area, the building departments deliberately sit on them because One Bay Area wants affordable housing and not the housing most of us build. Then again maybe I'm wasting my time here, maybe all this forum is about is a spot for a bunch of guys who want to to go work every day and take home a paycheck.


----------



## jar546

conarb said:


> Jeff:
> 
> The problem is the International Codes have gone well beyond health and safety and are now political, particularly here in California where building departments are illegally diverting money to other uses, we are averaging 7 years to get a permit to build a house in the Bay Area, the building departments deliberately sit on them because One Bay Area wants affordable housing and not the housing most of us build. Then again maybe I'm wasting my time here, maybe all this forum is about is a spot for a bunch of guys who want to to go work every day and take home a paycheck.



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.

So if you want to make a statement such as mine above, use it as a guide.  If you want to name call and make this political with wild accusations and opinions, that is not welcome.  You are always entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts.  Just tone it down.  Conspiracy theorists not welcome, factual posts are.  Youtube had to act on Alex Jones, I don't want to have to do the same to you.


----------



## conarb

jar546 said:


> 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.
> 
> So if you want to make a statement such as mine above, use it as a guide.  If you want to name call and make this political with wild accusations and opinions, that is not welcome.  You are always entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts.  Just tone it down.  Conspiracy theorists not welcome, factual posts are.  Youtube had to act on Alex Jones, I don't want to have to do the same to you.


 Jeff:

It's hard to respond to this statement because you acknowledge my points, in California back in the early 2000s the NAHB sued several cities for charging over the cost of delivery of services and won, the cities paid the damages and resumed their illegal activity.  All I can say is illlegally taking money from people is far worse than minor violations like those pointed out by Tiger here on almost a daily basis.  I had a good inspector who had a sign up in his cubicle saying: "Green is the new Red", eventually he told me he was quiting, he couldn't take it anymore.  At that time he told me he had no idea who would be assigned to me but named two guys who he said were real a$$holes, they would nitpick contractors then come back into the office bragging about what they were doing, isn't that a lot of what's going on here?  BTW, I did get another great guy, he told me: "You know what you are doing, I'm just going to let you do what you want,"  He did return on his own one day after an inspection with a sheet of paper, on the sheet was a special county ordinance showing propane pans being turned up 6" around the edges instead of the 2" that we normally do, he appologized and  asked me to rebuild my propane pans.  At the end when he went to sign the final he asked: "Are you sure you want me to sign this, have you been paid yet?"  I said no but I'll get the last million dollars when he did sign, he grabbed his pen and asked: "Where do you want me to sign?"

My fear is that we are losing all the good guys who don't want to be part of a political agenda, I guess I hope to influence those here to be whistleblowers and expose those AHJs who are committing crimes.  As I pointed out yesterday, why does it cost $200,000 to permit and inspect a 4,000 foot house in Calfiornia while a 4,000 foot house in Nevada can be permitted and inspected for a little over $3,000?  Part of it I'm sure is the fact that the Building Department has incorporated the Housing Department as a way to fund housing for the poor with permit fees paid by us contractors, pure Marxist: "From Each according to his Abilities, too Each according to his Needs".  Again, not only are codes political, but entire building departments are political.


----------



## jar546

conarb said:


> Jeff:
> 
> It's hard to respond to this statement because you acknowledge my points, in California back in the early 2000s the NAHB sued several cities for charging over the cost of delivery of services and won, the cities paid the damages and resumed their illegal activity.  All I can say is illlegally taking money from people is far worse than minor violations like those pointed out by Tiger here on almost a daily basis.  I had a good inspector who had a sign up in his cubicle saying: "Green is the new Red", eventually he told me he was quiting, he couldn't take it anymore.  At that time he told me he had no idea who would be assigned to me but named two guys who he said were real a$$holes, they would nitpick contractors then come back into the office bragging about what they were doing, isn't that a lot of what's going on here?  BTW, I did get another great guy, he told me: "You know what you are doing, I'm just going to let you do what you want,"  He did return on his own one day after an inspection with a sheet of paper, on the sheet was a special county ordinance showing propane pans being turned up 6" around the edges instead of the 2" that we normally do, he appologized and  asked me to rebuild my propane pans.  At the end when he went to sign the final he asked: "Are you sure you want me to sign this, have you been paid yet?"  I said no but I'll get the last million dollars when he did sign, he grabbed his pen and asked: "Where do you want me to sign?"
> 
> My fear is that we are losing all the good guys who don't want to be part of a political agenda, I guess I hope to influence those here to be whistleblowers and expose those AHJs who are committing crimes.  As I pointed out yesterday, why does it cost $200,000 to permit and inspect a 4,000 foot house in Calfiornia while a 4,000 foot house in Nevada can be permitted and inspected for a little over $3,000?  Part of it I'm sure is the fact that the Building Department has incorporated the Housing Department as a way to fund housing for the poor with permit fees paid by us contractors, pure Marxist: "From Each according to his Abilities, too Each according to his Needs".  Again, not only are codes political, but entire building departments are political.



OK, there is nothing wrong with the post you just made.  It appears to be factual and explains things while at the same time you are getting across your point without being derogatory or having inflammatory statements.  This we could have all day, every day without any issues.  Thank you for your input and listening.


----------



## mtlogcabin

If you where to ask for a break down of those "Permit Fees" it would look like this in my jurisdiction
14% building related fee and 86% impact fees. I imagine CA has a lot more impact fees and review fees then we do.

$240,000.00 evaluation
Plan Review Fee             $     50.00
Building Permit Fee         $1,558.85
Water Impact Fee            $2,567.00
Sewer Impact Fee           $5,757.00
Storm Water Impact Fee $1,121.00
Police Impact Fee           $     41.00
Fire Impact Fee               $   483.00

Total Fees 
paid when permit 
is issued                          $11,577.85


----------



## conarb

mtlogcabin said:


> If you where to ask for a break down of those "Permit Fees" it would look like this in my jurisdiction
> 14% building related fee and 86% impact fees. I imagine CA has a lot more impact fees and review fees then we do.
> 
> $240,000.00 evaluation
> Plan Review Fee             $     50.00
> Building Permit Fee         $1,558.85
> Water Impact Fee            $2,567.00
> Sewer Impact Fee           $5,757.00
> Storm Water Impact Fee $1,121.00
> Police Impact Fee           $     41.00
> Fire Impact Fee               $   483.00
> 
> Total Fees
> paid when permit
> is issued                          $11,577.85


Mountain Man:

If you increased that evaluation by a factor of 10 to $2.4 million would all of the impact fees go up by a factor of 10?  BTW, myself and others do everything possible to create a remodel rather than a new home because AHJs encourage remodeling existing homes while discouraging new homes, while remodeling costs a lot more than building new we drastically decrease permit times.  I recently had a new Impact Fee: Roads and Airports, I went to a hearing and argued that I was decreasing my square footage by 10%, decreasing my bedrooms form 5 to 4, decreasing my bathrooms from 4½ to 4, the main reason I was doing this to make the home earthquake-proof and decrease my carbon footprint, in fact I had the architect label the plans: "Earthquake Retrofit".  At the Roads and Airports hearing I was asked if the owners were going to have more children impacting the roads and airports?  I responded no they had 2 children and that's all they intended to have, so there would be no impact on roads and airports, as a society aren't we getting rather personal asking people how many children they are going to have? In the end I had an Environmental inspector try to throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, to get the permit signed off I was sent to an older gal in the department by the head plan checker, an older good guy, she asked if my septic and leach fields had been built as planned?  I said no-one knows but sign me off so I can get started and when I have a backhoe there I'll open everything up and call you to come out, that worked but when I called I got a young gal and she started challenging everything raising my sewer costs by over $100,000, like an office could be slept in so she called it a bedroom, the next day I called the older gal telling her what had happened, she said: "Oh no, you didn't get so-and-so, she's a Greenie from Sonoma State, I'll tear her report up and come out myself, she approved me as planned.  I'm seeing a distinct pattern, the older people are by-and-large good people, but the younger ones coming out of these left-wing colleges are out to save the planet no matter what it costs someone else.


----------



## tmurray

Back on topic:

I think we will always have these events. People need to be reminded why we have certain safety laws in order for the politicians to be able to support them. It is always cyclical. We have the event, enforcement increases, there are no further events, enforcement gradually decreases, once enforcement decreases enough we have another event. rinse and repeat.

A good example was the wave of people who refused to get their children vaccinated. No one had gotten the diseases in forever due to vaccinations. Parents then decide that the vaccinations are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, so they do not vaccinate their children. The children get the disease that the vaccination would have prevented and the parents realize that they made a horrendous mistake and then advocate the need for these vaccinations. In about 50 years we will do this all over again.


----------



## JCraver

mtlogcabin said:


> If you where to ask for a break down of those "Permit Fees" it would look like this in my jurisdiction
> 14% building related fee and 86% impact fees. I imagine CA has a lot more impact fees and review fees then we do.
> 
> $240,000.00 evaluation
> Plan Review Fee             $     50.00
> Building Permit Fee         $1,558.85
> Water Impact Fee            $2,567.00
> Sewer Impact Fee           $5,757.00
> Storm Water Impact Fee $1,121.00
> Police Impact Fee           $     41.00
> Fire Impact Fee               $   483.00
> 
> Total Fees
> paid when permit
> is issued                          $11,577.85




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.


----------



## steveray

We value houses at $74 per square foot and charge $15 per $1000 of value for all permits.....


----------



## conarb

JCraver said:


> 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

conarb said:


> *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

jar546 said:


> 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

conarb said:


> 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

mtlogcabin said:


> 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

tmurray said:


> 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.


----------



## Pcinspector1

conarb said:


> 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

tmurray said:


> 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.


----------



## Pcinspector1

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

Pcinspector1 said:


> _<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

mark handler said:


> 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.



			
				Phil said:
			
		

> 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

tmurray said:


> ... *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

mark handler said:


> 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

conarb said:


> ...
> 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

tmurray said:


> 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

conarb said:


> 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

tmurray said:


> 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.


----------



## cda

tmurray said:


> 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.




No problem with the foundation!!!


----------



## conarb

tmurray said:


> 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.



Tell them to put a sewer pump in the basement, I've done that many times, one time I built an entire 5,000 square foot house on a sewer pump because of no sewer in the lower road, another time with a 6,000 square foot house the sewer district wouldn't let me bridge a creek so I installed the sewer lateral down to the bottom of the creek and a sewer pump to pump the sewage up to the sewer in the road.  It's not your problem, you inspected the foundation and it's not impossible to make the system work, just more money.


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:


> Tell them to put a sewer pump in the basement, I've done that many times, one time I built an entire 5,000 square foot house on a sewer pump because of no sewer in the lower road, another time with a 6,000 square foot house the sewer district wouldn't let me bridge a creek so I installed the sewer lateral down to the bottom of the creek and a sewer pump to pump the sewage up to the sewer in the road.  It's not your problem, you inspected the foundation and it's not impossible to make the system work, just more money.


Exactly. And that is what they ended up doing. Luckily their site work guy works in the town all the time and told them the costs to continue to bring the foundation up to the point to get a gravity feed would have been about 20x the cost of the sewer pump so they dropped the action.


----------

