Safety codes are not insignificant, though. One of my colleagues is spending 20K to get his house "up to code" because the upgrades he wants to make would end t

Safety codes are not insignificant, though. One of my colleagues is spending 20K to get his house "up to code" because the upgrades he wants to make would end the grandfather clauses for things like having a three pronged dryer outlet instead of a four pronged one and needing an exterior disconnect switch for his electricity. The house is fine as-is, it's no deathtrap but the cumulative cost of compliance changes is substantial and the actual safety gain is minimal in comparison. For those who don't know, the city requires a switch on the exterior that cuts power to the whole house. It is meant for first responders but the problem is that you can't lock the box (so literally anyone can cut the power to your house at anytime, think of thieves and vandals) and the electric company actually has the ability to remotely cut the power already. The Fire department can call this request in on the dispatch, so the point of the physical switch is primarily moot. But the requirement still exists and it must be paid for. I'm not defending NIMBYs but I don't want to dismiss what the GP is talking about. Compliance costs are significant and especially so for non-new construction.