Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
You're right Rob...
With regard to plumbing, this is the more dangerous of the two trades to the general public safety issues from the position of infection. The threat comes from waste lines that might leak. The common safety test for this is called a “stack test” and that covers this issue. As you probably already know the waste lines are filled with water to the highest vent level on the roof. Then the lines are inspected for water leaks. If they don't leak, infection issues are no-longer a problem, it's that simple.
As per wiring safety from a public position, this is related to fire, however, the important fire codes are mostly related to the building shell itself today. This is only an issue if ones house catches on fire and the fire spreads to neighboring houses. This we already know is not a serious public safety concern because we have “Set backs” today that keep houses away from one another.
This is why I say there are no true public safety related issues involved in this.
But yes, in most states the owner has the right to plumb and wire the house themselves but still subject to the same inspections as the professional contractors.
This issue in court would either more than likely end up with the State trying to defend it's position wildly (assuming they don't simply toss in the towel from day one), all of this requiring little to no effort on behalf of the plaintiff to try to prove the statute is a takings. The States goose is cooked right off the bat with this statute and the States attorney would probably plead no contest and recommend an immediate statute repeal before it even got to court.
Because this a rights issue, the State could be hit hard financially via a damages award to the plaintiffs.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Rob, The US Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that States have the right to impose building, zoning and development codes. Every case they dealt with since wasn't about the legality of those regulations but about something else.
As an example I cite the same case cited in the other post. There was two parts to that case. One if government has the right to impose codes, standards, zoning etc. The court upheld that right of the state. The second part was overturned because there were two pieces of property and the requirement was placed on the second property not part of the development. As it pertains to this discussion, they upheld the government rights to use codes, zoning and development regulations.
It's foolish to think any court is going to overturn well established right of the state to impose legitimate building, zoning, development and licensing regulations. But there is a way to systematically remove some of the requirements through careful and intelligent lobbying. I'm trying to find that weak link that can be exploited to get the wheels of change turning without causing a showdown between licensed contractors, trade organizations, construction defect attorneys, the public, and all their lobbyist against any change. [^]
I'm looking at an exemption made in another state and trying to see if the sequence of events to get that exemption can be duplicated on Hawaii with few problems.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
Bob,
In my experience, even though most states allow owner builders to do everything with regard to building, wiring and plumbing. Most owner builders will still hire one or two of the three key players in their construction project (General, Electrician or Plumber).
What the trade unions and contractors need to realize is this, if they push for the existing statute to remain, they are indeed forcing themselves to lose contracts. This statute is a double edge sword taking away work from the contractor and the proof is all around the island with all the non-permitted homes about the islands.
The legislature needs to promote use of permits and that is only accomplished when the homeowner is not facing spending more money reasonably then they have to build a house. It also means the legislator needs to make the process user friendly. If this is not done to an acceptable level… we end up with scads of non-permitted homes.
If John Doe want’s a house and only has X for the budget… if he goes the permit route, he doesn’t have enough to build, but, if he ignores the permits then he has plenty to do the job. The statute has worked in reverse of its intents in all aspects. Community safety wise (septic) and for getting licensed people more work, the statute has damaged both issues.
The proofs are in comparing state codes to the actual percentage of permitted homes. I’ve worked in Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. The only non-permitted structures I see in the first 4 states are little things like small sheds and such but those states seldom require permits for anything under 250/120 s.f. but on the contrary in Hawaii there’s scads of non-permitted houses. This is not due to a lower income level, it’s due to unconstitutional statutes and codes that are not congruent to the environment or the people.
Take screened homes for example? What’s wrong with them in a place like Hawaii if that’s how some-one wants their house? If they can’t build the house they want (a screen house). How are they supposed to permit it to begin with?
It’s high time for the legislator to re-evaluate and modify the statutes properly and to stop with trying to make things more complex and rigid, that route has already proven itself as a failure.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
Seems to me the buzz words - "affordable housing" could come into play here.
David
Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
This is too wild... check this out carefully.
I would love to see Hawaii County simply stop requiring permits and simply require inspections instead. That would toss a monkey wrench into the States statute effectiveness.
Note here… it appears the County isn’t even required to implement permits! If they don’t require permits they are effectively free of the States statutes in this matter and can make their own rules and spin them around required inspections only!
Read this section carefully… LOL
“§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…”
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 299
Threads: 49
Joined: Jun 2003
Rob said "licensed trades are putting untrained and unsupervised workers onto sites" which is probably true. Interestingly, there are only 230 licensed journeymen electricians and 141 licensed supervisory electricians on the island. Which means a lot of unlicensed people, who may or may not be good electricians, are doing electrical work.
I have conflicting opinions about owner builder work. I have seen some really good unpermitted owner builder installations and some really bad ones. And some really bad ones by "electricians." I like the idea of inspections only but would hate to see inspectors become teachers for people who do the job all wrong. Perhaps they would just list the code sections violated but not explain how to fix it--make people read the code and figure it out themselves.
One thing about the current system, it encourages you to do it unpermitted if possible since the permitting process is such a pain--in both the a** and the pocketbook.
Jerry
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
Jerry,
It has always been my opinion that proper construction of structure and installation of electrical and plumbing components is a necessity, but, I’ve always questioned the mannerism in which it’s approached legislatively. This constant changing and claims of safety and evolving restrictions are way out of hand these days.
Through the years as you know we have a tendency to mull these matters over as we’re exposed to the regulations on a daily basis. IMO there should be no direct municipal involvement in these matters with regard to codes, regulations, inspections, etc. The municipalities should be left to manage zoning issues but nothing further. All Building related precedence should be established by the working professional members in the respective fields. There should be established a ranking level and it should be based on potential safety related hazards, etc, thus, considering fire value, seismic/wind and natural disaster resistance values, interior air quality values, energy ratings, etc. These home ratings would not be static but rather fluid, because as we know, technology and understanding progresses, effectively causing homes to sink within the ratings as our technologies and understanding evolve and the rating values become higher by digit designation. This would simplify matters for insurance companies and readily make transparent to a homebuyer the true condition and worth of the house before they purchase or build it.
All inspections should be done through rigidly monitored and regulated private inspection companies and builders/owners could purchase their services (should they elect) and a rating would be ultimately assigned to the house after all the appropriate inspections had taken place. Home’s that waive inspection services would have no rating and therefore “buyer beware” and most likely it would be difficult to impossible to insure and or finance.
This would allow for unlimited latitude in design, material and technique applications and bar relatively nothing within reason from being considered a home.
Personally speaking, I'm burned out on these issues and things have become a damn shame in the industry thanks to all these damn code revisions etc. It's a regular three ring circus now.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,466
Threads: 316
Joined: May 2008
"... The US Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that States have the right to impose building, zoning and development codes. ..."
This doesn't say the owner can't perform the work, just that the work has to be of a certain standard. Or, was this already stated here and I missed it?
I'm kinda wondering if this whole thing was to bring electricians and plumbers to Hawaii by "guaranteeing" them work through the regulation that only licensed contractors are allowed to do electrical, etc?
Puna: Our roosters crow first
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Supreme Court rulings are often made on rather narrow grounds proposed and contained withing the appealed verdicts/legislation. I think that there are rational, legal and potentially prevailing arguments to be made on a Federal level to overturn the state laws.
The conventional wisdom here in Hawaii is that the laws under questions were successfully lobbied on behalf of the unions who do hold and have long held unreasonable sway here in this state. I am not of the opinion that Hawaiian labor unions would have any/much sway in Federal court though they certainly do have the resources to file friend of the court briefs.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
EightFingers, the State has the right to implement rules for licensing of trades and any other reason for licensing in the public good and can establish use of trades in commerce. Construction is no different than insurance, pharmacies, taxis, drivers licenses, EMT, etc.
Kane, I don't disagree with your position on the undo burden of these regulations, but pulling in constitutional rights and such isn't supported under the laws.
Since I really don't want this to dwell on abstract theories of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I'm going to focus back on the regulations and what reasonably and practically could be done.
So, which one of these are allowed by an owner/builder in the construction process:
1. They can do the foundation work subject to inspection.
2. They can install structural elements subject to inspection.
3. They can install HVAC subject to inspection.
4. They can install roofing subject to inspection
Based on everyone’s experience, besides the absolute prohibition on electrical and plumbing, are there any other aspects of home construction as an owner/builder where the owner/builder cannot perform some of the actual work?
|
