12-27-2009, 03:05 PM
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.
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.