12-27-2009, 03:33 PM
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.
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.