03-28-2013, 07:19 AM
I would go further: compliance should be a stakeholder requirement, not a statutory requirement.
If the bank is paying for my house, they should be able to require licensed contractors as a way of protecting their investment.
If the bank is funding a mortgage so someone can buy the house, they (again) are in a position to require that all the work be licensed/permitted/inspected, as a matter of protecting their investment.
If I want to pay cash for the land, and build a shack with my own money, it should be up to me whether to hire licensed contractors.
The sad reality is, "licensed" does not automatically translate to "quality work" and/or "safety". Plenty of unsafe, non-compliant work is somehow "blessed" with permits while County threatens others with "unpermitted" status... all the while, government seeks "stricter standards", then wonders why people live in tents.
If the bank is paying for my house, they should be able to require licensed contractors as a way of protecting their investment.
If the bank is funding a mortgage so someone can buy the house, they (again) are in a position to require that all the work be licensed/permitted/inspected, as a matter of protecting their investment.
If I want to pay cash for the land, and build a shack with my own money, it should be up to me whether to hire licensed contractors.
The sad reality is, "licensed" does not automatically translate to "quality work" and/or "safety". Plenty of unsafe, non-compliant work is somehow "blessed" with permits while County threatens others with "unpermitted" status... all the while, government seeks "stricter standards", then wonders why people live in tents.