4 ms·

Can you share an example of a good business practice that is frustrated by any city's regulations?

icelancer 10y ago
Sure. I wanted to build a frame for loading things in my facility (don't want to disclose too much, but I work in sports science). I took plans to the local office and someone there said "Can't have anything load-bearing from the ceiling otherwise you need permits X and Y." Fair enough. Building codes being what they are, that's fine with me. I suggested a modified free-standing frame and took plans to the office. Same employee said: "Yep, that works. No load on the ceiling, no permit needed." Perfect. Contacted the local welder and paid X tens of thousands of dollars to have it designed and built for me. Go back to the local bureaucratic office and say "Hey, thanks for the help. Here's some pictures, it turned out great." Office now says: "Oh no. That's too tall. You need permit X, Y, and Z now. Estimated cost is now $10,000 for those permits (instead of $0)." "What? I gave you the plans ahead of time, you approved them, and it had the height on there and everything." "Yeah, I misread them apparently. Sorry. You still need the permits." So, there you go. Just one of about 10 hassles I've had with city government here. I could go on and on, but ironically enough I have permits for something unrelated to fill out.
- dboreham 10y ago
  Sounds more like a process problem: you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    >That would prevent them from requiring one later. Seriously doubt this would stop any government bureaucracy from enforcing what's on their books. Additionally, there's no way they'd sign such a letter. You haven't gone through permitting much, have you? The rules are intentionally vague.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      So the problem isn't so much that there are regulations, but that they won't give you a binding answer about what the regulations mean, which is a separate problem.
      - icelancer 10y ago
        Is it? Lack of clarity is usually a hallmark of regulations themselves, multiplying as more regulations hit the books.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later. Awww, that's cute. Have you never dealt with an American civil 'servant' before? They can lie, cheat and steal and not get fired. They can browse porn during the work day and not get fired. They can drive drunk, refuse to resign and get a sitting governor indicted for refraining to send them more money. Being a public employee in the United States is tantamount to being a demigod.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  So by your measure there shouldn't have been any restrictions at all, and you should have been able to build whatever you wanted with no oversight, inspection or requirements?
  - icelancer 10y ago
    No, I expect the city government to provide reasonable customer service and to have some accountability for what they said. At what point did I advocate for complete anarchy; I even DIRECTLY said in the post that I have no problem with the building code issues given load-bearing structures.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Well, that's the thing; I agree that the regulation should be clear and consistent, but there are people here arguing that there are problems with regulation and therefore it should be thrown out altogether.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  Nice example. Thanks for the detail here. BTW, building code inspectors in Los Angeles are also surprisingly inconsistent. Contractor makes request for final sign-off from city. First inspector checks the work and says 'No. You need X or I won't sign off.' Contractor does nothing. Instead, contractor requests another inspection for the same exact work. A different inspector comes the next week and says 'Ok. Fine. No problem. I'll sign off on this right now.'

Sure. I wanted to build a frame for loading things in my facility (don't want to disclose too much, but I work in sports science). I took plans to the local office and someone there said "Can't have anything load-bearing from the ceiling otherwise you need permits X and Y." Fair enough. Building codes being what they are, that's fine with me. I suggested a modified free-standing frame and took plans to the office. Same employee said: "Yep, that works. No load on the ceiling, no permit needed." Perfect. Contacted the local welder and paid X tens of thousands of dollars to have it designed and built for me. Go back to the local bureaucratic office and say "Hey, thanks for the help. Here's some pictures, it turned out great." Office now says: "Oh no. That's too tall. You need permit X, Y, and Z now. Estimated cost is now $10,000 for those permits (instead of $0)." "What? I gave you the plans ahead of time, you approved them, and it had the height on there and everything." "Yeah, I misread them apparently. Sorry. You still need the permits." So, there you go. Just one of about 10 hassles I've had with city government here. I could go on and on, but ironically enough I have permits for something unrelated to fill out.

dboreham 10y ago
Sounds more like a process problem: you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later.
- icelancer 10y ago
  >That would prevent them from requiring one later. Seriously doubt this would stop any government bureaucracy from enforcing what's on their books. Additionally, there's no way they'd sign such a letter. You haven't gone through permitting much, have you? The rules are intentionally vague.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    So the problem isn't so much that there are regulations, but that they won't give you a binding answer about what the regulations mean, which is a separate problem.
    - icelancer 10y ago
      Is it? Lack of clarity is usually a hallmark of regulations themselves, multiplying as more regulations hit the books.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later. Awww, that's cute. Have you never dealt with an American civil 'servant' before? They can lie, cheat and steal and not get fired. They can browse porn during the work day and not get fired. They can drive drunk, refuse to resign and get a sitting governor indicted for refraining to send them more money. Being a public employee in the United States is tantamount to being a demigod.
1_2__3 10y ago
So by your measure there shouldn't have been any restrictions at all, and you should have been able to build whatever you wanted with no oversight, inspection or requirements?
- icelancer 10y ago
  No, I expect the city government to provide reasonable customer service and to have some accountability for what they said. At what point did I advocate for complete anarchy; I even DIRECTLY said in the post that I have no problem with the building code issues given load-bearing structures.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Well, that's the thing; I agree that the regulation should be clear and consistent, but there are people here arguing that there are problems with regulation and therefore it should be thrown out altogether.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
Nice example. Thanks for the detail here. BTW, building code inspectors in Los Angeles are also surprisingly inconsistent. Contractor makes request for final sign-off from city. First inspector checks the work and says 'No. You need X or I won't sign off.' Contractor does nothing. Instead, contractor requests another inspection for the same exact work. A different inspector comes the next week and says 'Ok. Fine. No problem. I'll sign off on this right now.'