Code enforcement in America, started as a way for municipalities to ensure that things were built, and maintained in a safe and professional fashion.

Then, somewhere along the way Code Enforcement started to change. The first change seems to have been moving from ensuring that things are safe and professional, to controlling who could do the work, and thus who could earn a living doing it, more then worry about safety and proper procedures (example Below).

Then code enforcement changed again. It became as much if not more about the community "look and fit" of something, the the safety of it.

Along the way, property rights were lessoned and lessoned to the point that in some areas, you have to question if you have any rights at all.


In my case, my Mother recently bought a home. It is an old home, definitely built pre-1920. The town inspected the home for the seller and noted all discrepancies that would have to be resolved before a buyer could get a certificate of occupancy. TO avoid these issues, the seller choose to sell the house "As-Is", which leaves clearing these discrepancies to the buyer before they can legally move into the home. There were a few, but the ones I'm going to point out are the Electrical Discrepancies.

The inspector noted that the house was originally wired for two prong outlets, and that somewhere along the way, someone living there replaced the two prong outlets with three prong outlets without running a proper ground wire. They required that the house be returned to two prong outlets (which is not safe) so that the outlets matched the way it was wired. They also required that the Electrical service feeding the house be replaced because the wire outside the house was frayed and damaged, and the circuit breaker panel in the basement had no main circuit breaker so it also needed to be replaced (adding a separate main circuit breaker is not acceptable). They also required that all outlets in the Kitchen and Bathroom be replaced with GFI outlets (which will not properly work without a proper ground, so they would be no safer then two prong outlets) and lastly, several electrical wire runs in the basement had to be re-run because it is no longer legal to run the wires under the floor joists (and it didn't matter that this was legal when it was originally done). They have to be through the joists or in conduit. What was most interesting to me is that the entire house was run on only a few circuits, those being the original "Knob and Tube" wiring that was of a gauge (wire size) that was way below electrical standards of today, and considering the large load on each circuit (as there were too few of them) it was also a major fire hazard. However, to the inspector, this was apparently OK.

OK, so that is what the city wants. Should be easy enough, especially considering I have 8 years of experience as a electrician. However, that means nothing. And my military experience as an electrician means nothing, because I have to be a licenced electrician to do the work and to become one you have to so documented work time, under a journeyman electrician of at least 5 years. Ah, but there is an out for homeowners. In order to give the appearance of preserving property rights, my town created a test. If you pass the test, you can pull permits on your own home (and only your own home) to do electrical work. Problem is, the test is actually harder then the test one needs to pass to get a professional electrical license. I found it amusing when I learned that two local electricians, both with over 20 years of experience, and licensed in several counties and towns (including my town) could not pass the test. I found it rather odd when one electrical inspector told me not to bother to pay the fee and take it because he had been with the town for 11 years and had never seen anyone pass the test.

So I have to hire an electrician to do the work. But it gets better, it can't be just any electrician, even if they are licensed in the county, they also have to be licenced in the town. The special requirement for this license? Fill out a form, pay 200.00, your done, thanks.

So, I hire an electrician. I find one who will do the outside service work for a reasonable price and then allow me to do the inside work (under his license as a "helper") to save money. Great!! A $10000.00 job becomes a 3000.00 job, good deal for Mom. Then I try to schedule things with him so that he can check my work to make sure it is up to par before calling for a final inspection. No need. He's known the inspector for years, there will be no problems passing the inspection.

What?? So then what is the point of having one?

I have to wonder. Why is it, people cannot simply do whatever work they need to get done on the house themselves, then call for an inspection to ensure it meets code, and is safe? I asked Public works about this awhile back. The answer I got was that most of the inspectors are not qualified to verify a job is done correctly on that level. What? Then why are they inspectors? Well, it seems that when it comes to plumbing, Heating, Electrical, etc. A licensed professional is required because it is assumed that they will work within the properly. Also, and this is the real reason, if a licensed professional completes a job and signs off on it, then the liability for the job is on the professional, not the town. OK, so if I do it, why isn't the liability on me? "It doesn't work that way" is the answer I got.

So, the inspectors are not fully trained in how to inspect, yet their approval is required for a job to be final in the eyes of the codes department. Does this make sense? It seems to me that the real purpose of the codes department is to control who gets to earn a living at these types of professions (not to mention push conformity on the property owners in the town in regards to the "look and fit" of the property).

I don't understand why it is not my right to do the work as I choose to. If I do it improperly, or in a dangerous fashion, they person effected by this is me, the homeowner (or in this case my Mom). If the issue is that you may create a problem for future owners, then fine, require a licensed electrician inspect a home before a sale can be complete (like the host of other requirements we have today).

I would never live under one. But I can at least see that Home Owner Associations (HOA) have a legitimate place in America, because people who buy in areas with them, do so knowing the HOA is there and what the bylaws are (as they are required to be given a copy to review before a house is sold).

Code Enforcement Departments give you no such warning. As a private citizen, buying a home in a community, there is no requirement for that community to provide you with what the current codes and requirements are. Sure, you can get a copy, and it is useful only if you can read "legalese".

Sorry about the Rambling, I am pretty irritated at this whole thing and I guess it shows a bit.

Questions for Debate (please note, these questions refer to government code enforcement divisions, and not Home Owners Associations)

Does Code Enforcement, as in restricting what someone can do with their home (assuming the home is single family and owner occupied for the purposes of the discussion)violate the rights of property owners to live as they choose?

Is Code Enforcement really anything more then a shell game of who gets to make money doing this work and who gets the liability if something goes wrong?

Why is it that Code Enforcement can dictate that someone can't have a fence in their yard, purple siding, etc if they choose too. What happened to property rights in this country?

Should Municipal public works departments be required to give people a list of current code requirements in a format that anyone can read, before the people complete a property purchase there so that they know what they are in for if they want to make changes, additions, etc? Should any changes to these codes require a public referendum to enact?

I feel ya buddy.

I tend to think that we shouldn't have any codes for private residences, and for apartments & commercial buildings the only code should be "Do you have adequate Insurance?" - and the insurance companies could inspect to see whether or not the building was 'safe'.

Only voluntary associations like homeowners' should be able to determine what your building 'looks' like. If a neighborhood wants to preserve a historic ambiance, they better come up with the dough to pay the owners to do so.

I'm not going to come down on either side on this. You may have a valid point - I don't know enough to feel I can make an informed opinion. But I would pose a couple of questions, and maybe they point to why there is this kind of code enforcement.

What if you could do it your way - homeowner accepts liability and all that. So, Joe Blow does his own electrical work. His shoddy work results in an electrical fire that burns down his house - and mine, next door. I can see your point, but maybe houses in close proximity need a safety level to protect the property rights of the other property owners nearby.

So, (and I'm asking this out of ignorance) isn't it possible that there are numerous areas like this which can have an effect on others nearby? Can you do such shoddy plumbing that you cause a problem for neighbors?

It's a good point. My issue with is primarily that since the code inspectors are not trained well enough to be able to determine if the work is shoddy, then what is to stop a licenced electrician from doing shoddy work? Sure, the electrician is taking on the liability if is it shoddy, but then, wouldn't the homeowner be doing so as well?

There are solutions that are "more fair" then the current. One, have qualified inspectors on staff. Two, and this is likely the easiest, do not make the test for homeowners to be able to work on their own homes "unpassable". You need to know that the homeowner understands the basics, like what wire gauge can carry what load, how length of wire effects the load it can carry, what should be done when adding electric to potentially wet areas etc. The homeowner certainly should not have to know more then someone seeking an electrical license to work on other places.

As it stands now, they made it impossible for homeowners to legally do their own work. So, most lower income homeowners do the bare minimum to get a certificate of occupancy, and then do all the work they want to do "on the sly". Since the city is not aware that this work is done, it is not inspected. Doing it "on the sly" without a permit has become the norm. Which is more safe? Having a reasonable test for homeowners and / or qualified inspectors, or having the work done where "on the sly" where the homeowner takes no test, and no inspection is done at all?

Yes, anytime regulations (or taxes) are onerous, they will be avoided by some.

Plumbing, if done incorrectly, could contaminate drinking water -- tough to do, and very unlikely, and easily spotted by a minimally trained inspector. The bigger problem would be venting sewer gas up the house drains, gross, but limited to the house in question.

As for fire protection, houses generally have to be fairly close to each other for damage to occur, and generally have to be touching for severe damage to occur. Of course, wildfires are a different story, as are vacant houses (they tend to get a head start on the fire dept.)

Much of such regulations are protectionist measures for skilled tradesmen. I tend to agree with some sort of licensing requirements for those who sell their labor to othors (though I tend to favor testing over experience requirements).

Perhaps there could be a highly trained inspector with one fee schedule for homeowners and a lesser trained inspector with lower fees for licensed contractors.

It amazes me what local governments do to make it difficult for people to live in their jurisdictions.