Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Aye, but there is merit in the claim that everyone else is doing it. This is not like slapping someone on the sidewalk because everyone else is doing it. This is more like moving with the flow of traffic in as much that failure to do so results in "adverse affect". In this case it boils down to takings through adverse affect and when the county creates a law requiring permits yet fails to fully enforce the permitting we have an issue of property devaluation/adverse affect. In this case the takings arises by virtue of non enforcement of the permitting laws and therefore reduces the value of the neighboring properties and decreases any improvement investment a homeowner may select to preform. As a consequence many people decide to go unpermitted and reduce the required investment sums by not meeting the building permit and code expectations. Adverse affect induces takings.
This is where a County can identify the adverse affect issue and realize that there are opportunities available to them with regard to transfer of land rights that can provide an exemption status to properties not subdivided after X date. When properties are subdivided the land use codes may apply newly adopted restrictions to them where in the case of properties subdivided before the new land use restrictions are put in place the grandfathered right still prevails according to previous land use regulations. This is inclusive of shoreline set backs when brought to court for property rights that existed on the parcel prior to the new set back adoptions.
In essence, the County has a legal card to solve the issue and take the State to court if need be with regard to the States expectation to require all projects in the county to be permitted, etc. All subdivisions created before the implementation of building codes could in essence retain the right to build without permits just as their still grandfathered in with regard to other previous held rights. All subdivisions created after the implementation of building permits would be subject to the permits and codes necessary at the time of their creation. Thought the parcels wouldn't be subject to the codes adopted after their creation.
There are ways to solve the problem for the County and there are legal arguments to protect oneself under such adverse circumstances.
Posts: 14,106
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
This is more like moving with the flow of traffic in as much that failure to do so results in "adverse affect".
Even where this is also "speeding", which is a violation of the rules that apply to all.
transfer of land rights that can provide an exemption status to properties not subdivided after X date
As such rights would then no longer be consistent across TMKs, they would become a mandatory disclosure item for real estate transactions, thus not a surprise to be discovered later.
County allows the roads to be held to a lower standard, the same should be allowed of habitation. One size does not fit all.
Posts: 158
Threads: 7
Joined: May 2014
What a laughable LOAD ! Fortunatly there is no legal merit or standing, for what you think "should be" or the claim (excuse) " everyone else is doing it".
Nothing but straight up anarchist propaganda. You obviously have not tryed these arguments out in a court of law. Ha ha ha ha ha
.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Anarchist? Please demonstrate how that is anything like an anarchist position?
Land rights are transferred with the land. The application of building codes undermine pre building code land rights that were not originally subject to such regulations. The devaluation/takings occur when the owner is then forced to pay additional moneys to meet the applied codes that previous owners with the same land rights were not subject to forcing them to build something far more advanced and not necessarily congruent with the region/subdivision. When a parcel is subdivided, it becomes subject to revision with regard to the transfer of rights and uses. Keeping subdivisions uniform without future modifications meets the original land use intent and does not place future uniformly applied expectations upon inappropriately previously planned subdivisions.
After an initial build takes place under the original land rights a future remodel or demolition and rebuild could then be expected to meet updated codes but not until the original land rights have been executed. This keeps uniform application of law in check by virtue of applying all use rights to the land instead of an arbitrary/indeterminable destiny application. No surprises or additional burdens placed on the municipality or the land owners. In the case of the big island it would considerably reduce the Counties liability and reduce the enforcement burdens placed upon it.
This also effectively allows an area to actually develop and evolve the infrastructure and economic base necessary to implement highly advanced codes that are beyond the scope of the underdeveloped region in question. I.E. applying building codes that are largely developed for high density areas increasing building cost substantially to meet the many additional safety needs is not applicable to a lazy rural communities needs and substantially undermines its potential evolution.
There are legal standings with regard to this sprinkled throughout former court rulings.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Land use regulations were heard by the supreme court and were upheld by the court with a notation of possible future re-visitation by the courts to determine their affects overall. Land use rights are transferred with the land. Building codes on the other hand have not been heard by the courts with regard to constitutional application. Particular materials have been questioned in the courts and the courts have found in many cases that the codes amounted to takings when disallowing alternative materials and methods. Building/improvement rights are in essence intrinsic to land use rights and in as much should likewise reflect the same transfers with the land itself and not by an encroaching series of takings resting on the back of series of codes developed by an non legislative body absent Constitutional recognition of powers and not subject to checks, balances and limitations.
There are many facets to this subject.
Posts: 14,106
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The application of building codes undermine pre building code land rights that were not originally subject to such regulations.
Like when the US annexes Hawaii to become a State, and next thing you know they've invented a whole OHA/DHHL to administer land rights (complete with building permit requirements) to the people who were already here?
All they really want is some way to valuate everything for tax purposes. Can't we just pay the protection money and skip the whole middle part with the pointless inspections and worthless permits?
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Another aspect is the States power to regulate business and establish rules for public safety etc. The business of construction may be regulated but that has been improperly applied to construction in general and was not separated from the common person constructing a shelter or structure for their own use upon their own private property. Think of it this way. There are particular standards, rules and regulations applied to the business/industry of making toys. That has not been mistaken to apply to a parent/grandparent making a toy for their family members or friends as gifts and not in the realm of mass production for public sales. Thus toy making regulations are limited to the business of toy making. This applies similarly across all areas of industry except building... and there is the first mistake made by the application of building codes placed upon the private citizen building for their own use on their own private property. Applying the code to the building industry does mesh with constitutional scrutiny however it crosses the limitations line when it's applied to the non business application of building. No anarchy, just equal observation of the limits set forth in governmental regulation.
For all those with a passion for cooking at home. How would you feel if DOH inspectors were allowed to come into your home and inspect your kitchen to see if it meets the same standards applied to restaurants and if you fail the inspection you get a big fat fine? Well that's identical to what happens when a person who wants to build their own home with their own two hands is subjected to with permits and building codes. Chew on that a while.
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Inspectors don't show up unless they're called to do an inspection, called in, by either the framing contractor/Owner builder, Plumbing contractor, or Electrical contractor after completion of a phase of construction. And they never show up all together. Never heard of that happening before. And they don't harass anyone. It's always been my experience that if they encounter anything adverse they leave immediately.
What happened to you sounds like an episode from the twilight zone.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Now... when one considers the incongruent and improper application of State regulation through codes and permits etc applied to home owners building their own homes. One then realizes the only damn person who should be allowed to report a nonconforming structure is the owner of the structure themselves to report something their contractor has done wrong. A neighbor calling the building department should have absolutely zero impact on prompting a building inspection and factually violates home owners privacy rights.
Posts: 295
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2014
topograph -again this is not an issue about permits. its an issue about persecution. i do not believe for one minute that all three inspectors were on their way anywhere when they stopped at my house in the back of beyond. i have yet to hear from a single person who believes that all three inspectors EVER come at the same time (because we are not talking buses here!). someone 'arranged' this. so to get back to the point - how can that issue be dealt with?
firstly what possible reason can there be for surprise inspections. i can understand the CPS or the police needing to arrive without notice to see what is going on, but building inspectors?
secondly - selective enforcement IS harassment. both those issues should be of some concern to our council members. i have contacted mine and he is equally bemused by the turn of events and equally concerned at its implications. unfortunately Mr. Lee from the public works doesn't appear to be. i have yet again been refused access to the paperwork involved. The last line on my letter was that i hoped we could work together to deal with this issue with honesty and reason. so i guess that despite my best intentions, it looks like more legal wrangling and more waste of money.
wao nahele - thank you your time and considered reply.
#10048;
#10048;
