Senseless Regulation of Construction
 

I notice that just about every state regulates building construction. Inspectors want to see framing before it is covered up by sheet rock, for example. To make sure the building will be structurally sound.

Manufactured housing is inspected at the manufacturing site because this is where the inspectors can view the framing before sheet rock covers it up.

Should we be doing this? Isn't this just another example of gubmit over-regulation? Are we making a mistake by preventing customers from getting screwed by construction contractors and modular housing vendors? Shouldn't we just let commerce do what commerce does: Offer a wide variety of different quality levels and let the customer decide whether they want cheap/crappy or expensive/reliable? Wouldn't we save money if we just let builders and customers make their own decisions?

You have to have minimum standards in any industry. Construction is no different.

Why does the FDA inspect food processing plants?
Why must car meet safety standards?
Why are Doctors tested?

Construction standards and inspections save lives and maintain home values. Ever seen construction in a third world country?

Get real.

You must be a liberal. Several of our most effusive contributors here espouse the policy of eliminating gubmit altogether, except for national defense. They believe these regulations get in the way of the Free Market. they further believe the Free Market will address problems, like quality and safety problems, through the hallowed mechanism of supply-and-demand. They think that if regulations disappeared, those mechanisms would work efficiently. Last but not least....they believe the deregulation would save us money. That's the question to which I want to see folks' answers. Would deregulation of building construction save money? I think I know the answer.

Sometimes.

The free market is a fine idea, in theory, but in this instance it wouldn't work fast enough or well enough to do much good. People would get screwed left and right and I believe that lot's of bad things would happen. There are too many people willing to cut corners and many others who are completely ignorant of how things need to be constructed for this to be a good idea. In practice, there is not a great deal of inspection for most projects, so the cost it adds is minimal anyway.

There are other areas of government I'd do away with first.

JR

Supe if you are serious about that i have lost all respect.

Why do some people want to cherry pick what's regulated and what's not? Isn't this just black or white?

Berettafan,

If you are serious about Supe being serious then I have lost all respect. . .

Burnin oil if you are serious about me being serious about supe being serious then i will call you Shirley.

Serious about what? Let me be clear, with no green font. I am in the construction industry. I agree with the decision to regulate construction. If we didn't, buildings would fall and people would be killed. The public would pay MUCH more if building inspections were eliminated.

And yes, there are those here who are 100% serious about eliminating all gubmit offices other than military. I'm waiting for them to explain their belief system. This thread is a trap for them. They likely will not fall for it, though. Their positions are untenable. And yet, we will again hear from them in other threads. We will hear how gubmit budgets should be slashed by 80%, and all regulations should be abandoned. Lots of folks here have thought things through to the point where they take a Libertarian position. Ayn Rand followers. They stopped there, and failed to continue to think things through to the point where they understand the implications of wholesale deregulation. I want to talk with them about that. Right here. But they won't show up.

I hate government regulation of the construction industry. The more crappy houses that are built, the more construction litigation there is I can get involved in to pay for my Porsche habit.

Without strict codes (and often in spite of them) contractors will build to the lowest level they can, charging the highest rates possible. They'll cover up all the mistakes with sheetrock and lovely wood trim and sell the house as a "custom built, luxury home".

Sensible codes, well enforced would dry up construction litigation and I'd have to look for work elsewhere. The average consumer does not have the expertise to tell whether a home was built to code or not. The families who inadvertently buy a home that rots from the inside out, or falls down, or is on sinking soil, are financially devestated. The impact on whole communities is heartbreaking.

The duty of government is to set minimal standards when the market is unable to do so efficiently and then stand back and let the market place work out the details. That's what building codes are for.

Okay supe, i suppose i'll let you live another day;)

Was gonna have to post a picture of kryptonite or a 1099 or something to destroy you and your evil ideas!

Me a liberal? RIGHT.

But I have been in the construction industy for 30 years. The problem is people are STUPID when it comes to building even a dog house and you want people to build with no standards and oversight?

You must be a lawyer because those will be the ones that will be driving up the cost then.

You seem to have forgotten the differance between developed countries and the third world back water POS countries is order, process, minimum standards, proceedures and oversight.

Actually your way of thinking is more liberal than mine. You're going to allow everyone to do as they please and let cost be the only factor. Now that is pretty liberal.

Whew, that was close. Thanks for the heads up.

Ury see post #10. he's getting all 'tabsy' on us.

superman, I was convinced that you were a friggin lib, and then you post this, so I'm confused now.

Anyway, I have strong feelings about gubmit regolation, or perhaps over regolation.

I think we are taxed to the brink of extinction, and regulated to the point that the biggest liability for the small business owner is criminal liability. They want to criminalize everything, now our car phones for crying out loud. The helpful government bureacrat, who I can deal with, is being outphased by the activist bureacrat.

We are going to lose the American dream. In our lifetimes. Future generations will ask us why we let it happen on our "watch". Wait and see, it will happen. The most important American right, the right to work for yourself, and not for someone who doesn't give a shiznit about you, is being lost to our prophylactic societal mindset, that a new law will make everything better...that if only we can legislate our way to Utopia. Somehow, with more and more laws, our quality of life gets worse, not better, and still the libs stay insanely naive, I just don't get it. Rely on yourself to make your own, way, not your government.

Now, having said all of that, building inspectors are necessary. They peform a legitimate, needed role. Yes, they should inspect the foundations before they are poured, wiring in the building frame before it is sheeted over. What we don't need is to deal with the bullseye on our back that makes business people the object of every new law. The next politician who runs on a platform of government moratorium on business regulation gets my vote.

As a contractor, the last thing I want to see unregulated is construction. If anything, regs, standards,and enforcement need to be beefed up.

He posted that while I was still writting. Sorry...

"Tabsy"? Is that the new term for "fuchin with peoples heads"? :D

we started letting folks decide which rules, or laws they should obey long ago..
why start now,

Rika