Right of Owner Builder Plumbing/Electrical

[Wao nahele kane]

It would appear that the state of Hawaii itself is responsible for this legislation and the offending statutes are at the State level.

§444-9.1 Issuance of building permits; owner-builder registration. (a) Each county or other local subdivision of the State which requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, demolition, or repair of any building or structure shall also require that each applicant for such a permit file as a condition to the issuance of a permit a statement that the applicant and all specialty contractors are licensed under this chapter, giving the license numbers and stating that the licenses are in full force and effect, or, if the applicant is exempt from this chapter, the basis for the claimed exemption; provided that if the applicant claims an exemption under section 444-2(7), the applicant shall also be required to certify that the building or structure is for the applicant's personal use and not for use or occupancy by the general public. Each county or local subdivision of the State shall maintain an owner-builder registration list which shall contain the following information: (1) the name of any owner or lessee who claims an exemption from this chapter as provided in section 444-2(7); (2) the address of the property where exempt building or improvement activity is to occur; (3) a description of the type of building or improvement activity to occur; (4) the approximate dates of construction activity; and (5) whether any electrical or plumbing work is to be performed and if so, the name and license number of the person or entity who will do the work. The absence of such registration is prima facie evidence that the exemption in section 444-2(7) does not apply.

(b) The county shall verify the license against a list of licensed contractors provided by the state contractors licensing board, which list shall be updated at least quarterly. The county shall also verify that the applicant is in fact the contractor so licensed or the contractor's duly authorized agent.

© To qualify for the exemption under section 444-2(7), the county shall provide the applicant with a disclosure statement in substantially the following form:



"Disclosure Statement

State law requires construction to be done by licensed contractors. You have applied for a permit under an exemption to that law. The exemption provided in section 444-2(7), Hawaii Revised Statutes, allows you, as the owner or lessee of your property, to act as your own general contractor even though you do not have a license. You must supervise the construction yourself. You must also hire licensed subcontractors. The building must be for your own use and occupancy. It may not be built for sale or lease. If you sell or lease a building you have built yourself within one year after the construction is complete, the law will presume that you built it for sale or lease, which is a violation of the exemption, and you may be prosecuted for this. It is your responsibility to make sure that subcontractors hired by you have licenses required by state law and by county licensing ordinances. Electrical or plumbing work must be performed by contractors licensed under chapters 448E and 444, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Any person working on your building who is not licensed must be your employee which means that you must deduct F.I.C.A. and withholding taxes and provide workers' compensation for that employee, all as prescribed by law. Your construction must comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building codes, and zoning regulations. If you violate section 444-2(7) you may be fined $5,000 or forty per cent of the appraised value of the building as determined by the county tax appraiser, whichever is greater, for the first offense; and $10,000 or fifty per cent of the appraised value of the building as determined by the county tax appraiser, whichever is greater for any subsequent offense."



The county shall not issue a building permit to the owner-applicant until the applicant signs a statement that the applicant has read and understands the disclosure form.

(d) A county building inspector or other building official shall report to the regulated industries complaints office the name and address of any person, who, in the opinion of the building inspector or official, has violated this chapter by accepting or contracting to accomplish work which would classify the person as a contractor under this chapter. [L 1974, c 112, pt of §1(1); am L 1978, c 147, §1; am L 1985, c 215, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 142, §3; am L 1992, c 258, §2; am L 1996, c 172, §4]




E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Kapohocat]

Many years ago, when the contractors were starving - they decided to starve out the owner builders and small developers. The trade unions backed this direction. (and the trade union lobbyists were even stronger than the contractors lobbyists.)

The bone that was thrown to get this all passed was the small owner builder exemption. The safety issues were picked up as a reason why this should all pass. But the original intent IMHO had nothing to do with safety, only money.

[ric]

More about money than safety . . .

Hmmm. Reminds me of Copenhagen.

We get tricked into lots of regulations with the threat of catastrophe. But often it does come down to powerful lobbyists and those who will make money.

[tada]

I would probably electrocute myself but my brother on Oahu been an electrician for 30 years I'd bring him over to wire up for slave wages if I ever build a house??

Other people want to make friends- I just want to make money.
James Cramer

[DanielP]

Wao,

This is certainly an issue that should come before the Federal courts. The problem is that the $ supporting this law is big. If you can find an attorney that is willing to take this case pro-bono, then there is a good chance it could be won. Otherwise this would be a huge and expensive undertaking.

A bit similar to this issue is the story of one of my heroes, who took her case against the city planning department all the way to the US Supreme Court! Look up Dolan v. Tigard.

Dan

[Wao nahele kane]

Dan,
Yep, I recall that case and picked up materials at Dolan’s store many times back when I lived in Tigard. It's the one that later brought forth several other cases on other aspects regarding land takings and municipal coercions to grant permit approvals.
I’ve no doubt these Hawaii statutes can be shredded at the Federal level too but there are other existing precedence cases that should settle it at the Hawaii Supreme Court if not before. I wish I could dig them up again, but I do recall that some of the arguments cited the Homestead Act amongst a couple other things. The argument finally summed up on the preamble for one of the Justices and it was along the lines of the following excerpt of Ayn Rand from “Man’s Rights”.
--------- “A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”---------


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[DanielP]

LOL, small world. I urge others to look this case up. Imagine one little hardware store owner fighting her city's planning department all the way to the US Supreme Court! And WINNING! Yee Haaa!

Dan

[JWFITZ]

Nice to see this brought up. Isn't this all a clear 5th amendment issue where the state forces private individuals to bear private costs against the value and enjoyment of their property, both real and intellectual? If so, it seems the state should pay you to file permits, not the other way around.

Here's a link.

[url]
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/a...ation.html[/url]

The permitting and inspection racket is only a cash generator for big contractors and the state at the cost of homeowners. Homeowners would be shocked to know the number of inspections I've seen where the "inspector" wizzed by signing off at 60 MPH--at least if you're in the loop. . .houses built where I wasn't aware of any official oversight or licensed(or trained) guys on the job. . .ah well, I'm sure many of us have stories on that score.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[mdd7000]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ

... Homeowners would be shocked to know the number of inspections I've seen where the "inspector" wizzed by signing off at 60 MPH--at least if you're in the loop. . .houses built where I wasn't aware of any official oversight or licensed(or trained) guys on the job. . .ah well, I'm sure many of us have stories on that score...

---

Having now looked at a number of houses to possibly purchase in Puna, I am stunned at how poor the quality of construction has been - over and over again - and the owner proudly proclaiming "Everything is legal and permitted." Maybe legal in a third world country?

[JWFITZ]

No, just "legal" in a corrupt country.

This isn't just a Hawaii issue. There's a lot of that on the mainland too. Every bit as much as here. The scammers just have a bit more polish there, but only barely.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/