BLOG ARCHIVES:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

AndrewJohn makes a good point. Proscriptive codes do tend to stifle innovation, especially innovation that doesn't involve a large corporation making money. But I don't think that this measure solves that problem. It seems to me that adapting our development/permitting process to allow for innovative alternatives to conventional building practices would be much more effective than just sidestepping the permit process altogether. Perhaps an alternative permitting route could be offered to those who have found ways to satisfy the intent of a specific code, though they don't conform to the letter of the code.

Regarding the cost and confusion of the permitting process, it helps when the various municipal agencies and departments involved with development and construction have a clear framework for communicating with each other, and a clear system for homeowners to navigate the permitting process. I don't know about other cities in Oregon, but Portland has a pretty decent system, and perhaps should be looked to as an example.

Courtney S. — Wed Oct. 29th 4:38p.m.

From the point of view of an "elder" living in an even more elderly house, I certainly can see this issue from the safety side. We all want to know that our houses are safe. And we want some clear assurance that this is so. But the complexities of the permit process, and horror stories from friends about requirements for additional repairs and updating, which went beyond their financial capacity to comply, leaves me leaning toward a "no". Innovative building and refitting an old house is of great interest to me and I want to go in that direction. However, the permit process isn't friendly. Far too expensive and far too time consuming.
I also wonder, if this initiative passes, what it will mean for homeowners if there is a loss. Will homeowners insurance companies deny payment on damages after repairs or upgrades that are allowed by this bill?
This is too complex an issue to put into state law without a full public and legislative process of review and consent.

Mirra Meyer — Wed Oct. 29th 7:11p.m.

I wouldn't mind a bill similar to Measure 63, if it was written by someone other than Bill Sizemore. From all I've heard and read, his measures are often poorly written, and end up with far more unintended consequences than other better-written, and more carefully thought out measures. I hope we can begin to incorporate more green and sustainable types of building options into our codes so that folks can take advantage of them.

Holly Havens — Wed Oct. 29th 7:53p.m.

Re Andy Louden: A permit fee is not just for an inspection, it pays for an engineer to go over the plan and check it for code, safety, and standard practices compliance.

The idea is that the permittee pays for the costs, instead of unloading the cost onto the public.

I'm just guessing that the solar panels were for electric and those types of hookups and inspections are very important for safety reasons especially for outside lineman.

Tom D Ford — Thu Oct. 30th 12:47p.m.

Comments are now closed.