For one, not necessarily, and two, small comfort if it happens after the fact when it could be avoided with some reasonable oversight. For example, screwing up erosion is something likely to be overlooked by parties involved and is at high risk of not being noticed naturally until after damage is difficult or impossible to undo. Besides, I think folks like it when matters like that are settled before they might incur liability.

Another example, I had some HVAC work done. The county inspectors highlighted a fire hazard after they were done, that I never would have realized unless the house caught fire.

Now where I live, permits aren't overly expensive and are fairly expedient as are inspections. I can understand frustrations if there's no effort at reasonable efficiencies, but then again some projects require community fair chance to become aware and provide feedback, and those sorts of projects can really drag out the time since it's mostly waiting to give a chance for it to be noticed.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like you say avoiding liability is in everyone's interest. In a utopian libertarian society maybe an inspector someone you'd want to pay electively like an engineer.

Someone who could coordinate consultations with surrounding properties and engage others who are experts with say surface water etc.

The other option might be your insurance company would require inspection for you to receive coverage.. In the event of say an HVAC electrical fire. Then the cost is certifying the build is covered by a private company instead of being a state operated service which is free from the pressures of competition. Also then delays in permitting could also incur liability :)

In reality if permitting is quick, affordable and isn't weilded like a political weapon Im mostly fine with it. The federal government is using it to pretty much shut down oil and gas development in Canada. Municipal permitting is partly why we have a massive housing crisis.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Houses are largely built by shell companies that exist to build the neighborhood then dissolve. When the house fails in 5 years there's nobody to sue for damages.

So instead we require developers to permit and build shit right before we allow the houses to be occupied. The streets have to be built right, the increased impervious cover has to be accounted for to prevent flooding of the next property over, and inspections have to be performed.

Then, we make them pay a maintenance bond and the City takes over maintenance of the road, using the bond to pay for repairs in the first 10 years. If they build them right, the bonds don't get used, and we give the money back.

But to get the money back they have to keep the company alive, so there's someone to sue.

And the permit to build a house is about $3,500 here. I ran the numbers for our budget cycle, and we actually lose money on single family houses. We make it up some with commercial buildings, but overall our department loses money, and people building houses are being subsidized by the existing tax payers while bitching about the fees.