Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

In california, where you could sell a house now with Godzilla sleeping in the basement, telling owners, that although you will die when he wakes up, his sleep cycle is 5 years out, the real estate agents control the inspection process.

If home inspectors squelch deals, whether sued or not, they will be unemployed.

I had a friend who was a real estate agent and she was selling a house, as is, with some disclaimers (that no new work was done without a permit, and that the toilet seal keeps leaking and lifting the lino that keeps getting repaired; minor contradiction about unpermitted work). They also wanted an estimate on some electrical upgrades, so I did a crawl that the HI didn't do, found the real cause of the lino problem as well as another, and found that they had done extensive remodeling. I tried to tell the real estate agent that there was a problem to be fixed (small lake of water under house) and that more than the little doo-da in the bathroom was done, and that the problem was leaking seals around shower controls, but i was told to not interfere as neither wanted to squelch the deal.

That's the reality in the leveraged world, why business-by-itself should never be the bottom line determiner. If profit is the bottom line, that is the typical ethically challenged viewpoint, as business viability is the MOST important thing, as opposed to integrity, or other possible determiners of "the bottom line."

As a side note, "the bottom line" didn't become the bottom line until sometime in the eighties; there were other things that we prided ourselves on being able to do irregardless of circumstance, and of course, the bottom line. We used to consult with the book-keeper, the attorney, and the insurance agent for the impact of what we were GOING to do. Now we don't do anything without their permission.

Responsibility without the power to do the job is meaningless. If a HI is not really free to state what they see, what kind of BS is going on about their responsibility. However, if they are under no constraint to provide reports that sell houses, it is their responsibility to provide all the info, even suspect and potential problems. The real problem is that they are just a business.

I thought about doing the HI route, but it's PR, flash, a good looking report, and being friends with all the realtors. maybe it's not that way with other states, but CA is that way.

I believe the HI should have mentioned the potential problem with the panel, but as a non-licensed non-electrician, he would be stepping beyond his legal right to actually inspect the panel for breaker problems. This is sort of like what's going to happen soon when the question will be whether the home was built with water-proof glue in the OSB, although far enough out, it won't matter, it's all OSB. Although I know there is a problem, no one wants to talk about it. Period. The emperor has no clothes and his hands are in his pockets.

sorry for the length and soapbox

paul

 

[mhi]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

If home inspectors squelch deals, whether sued or not, they will be unemployed.

If HI's don't perform the service (provide information with which a client can make an informed purchase decision)they won't find many referrals. If you help a slippery real estate agent get past dirty little secrets to seal a deal, how long before that agent gets sued? After the HI's suit perhaps?

 

[petersonra]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

the bottom line is any HO who accepts the HI that is paid for by the seller is doing themselves a disservice.

It is like the awful practice of having one lawyer do both sides of the paperwork in a RE deal. You have no clue what you are signing, or what it might mean down the road. You should pay someone to protect yourself from your own ignorance. The lawyer represents whomever he is paid by, so does the HI. So does the RE agent. never forget that the loyalty goes to the guy writing the check. And that is the way it should be.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

When I interviewed for a job with an HI firm (all the HI's were PE's), I noticed one favorable thing about their report content and format. It was honest about issues that were discovered, but did not overstate any issue (with "overstate" meaning that the issue was outside the HI's particular area of expertise).

I went on one inspection, as a learning experience. I remember that that home had a Federal Pacific panel. From what I recall, the final report said something along the following lines, "The main panel was manufactured by XXX, and there is some history of problems with panels made by that company. It is recommended that this panel be inspected by an electrician, to determine whether it is functioning in a satisfactory manner."

The big difference is that the report did not say "This type of panel is bad, and you must replace it." It said, "There have been problems, and I recommend you have it looked at by a professional." Their report format had similar statements for plumbing and structural issues as well.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

all the HI's were PE's

I would never have guessed there was enough money in the HI racket to siphon off PEs to do it.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

Why can't the HI give the info to the party who paid for the inspection?

He does not have to put it down as a violation.
The inspection is for consumer protection.

I say give the info to the consumer.

edit: Now that i've read it, ditto what Charlie said.

[ September 16, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: sandsnow ]

 

[realolman]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

If home inspectors squelch deals, whether sued or not, they will be unemployed.
paul [/QB]

my wife is in the mortgage industry and she has told me this many times.

As a side note, "the bottom line" didn't become the bottom line until sometime in the eighties;
paul [/QB]

are you talking about the 1980's or just the 0080's

[ September 16, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: realolman ]

 

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

1980's

 

[realolman]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

I wasn't biting on you ...I agree with what you said... What I meant was, don't you think people have been greedy pretty much forever?

I think since they have made computers so about any boob can use them, financial types now worry about making .0002 percent instead of just .00019.

Probably the eighties.

[ September 18, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: realolman ]

 

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

Without getting into any other country's history, America's bottom line has not been the bottom line until recently.

Sure, greed is one of the 7 sins, and Mammon was an evil god, but that only points out that greed was to be resisted, not institutionalized. It was in the 80's that our elected leaders started using the economic version of the phrase "the bottom line" to stop funding "the Great Society" benefits, for Reagan to start re-costing the price of a public education in California, and so on.

Our history is filled with examples of our country putting needs, morals, education, peace, and so much more ahead of the bottom line. America's bottom line was originally religious freedom, ostensibly, and the idea of personal civil freedoms has always predominated, well above the economic bottom line. The Louisiana purchase and the purchase of Alaska were considered follies by many, unaffordable.

Just think of what would have happened to the westering movement if it were run by the real estate lobbies and insurance industry. It was bad enough with marginal meddling.

Not every body ran west and said "it's all mine". It wasn't always about getting rich. Not everyone looked at life that way. It wasn't illegal to be poor until recently. It wasn't illegal to be homeless. Thoreau, Whitman, the Beats are all poetic treasure troves left by poets who traveled and lived poor. This list is near unendable.

Without getting into the political fray, current policies in both government and industry allow non-responsible money, with no actual repercussions, undue influence over government policies, primarily over the need to fund re-elections. A lot of the timing of the ascendence of the power of money is tied to media influence the has become near paramount in recent history, namely from the 70 & 80's or so.

Hence, greed has become prime as tool of gaining election, of passing laws, and thus has gained the status of proof of worth, intelligence, proof of the "right-to-do" many things. But just read the many posters here who are happy to live moderately, who are not driven to unethical means to gain more and more, to see that it is not a given fact that people are greedy. In fact it becomes somewhat obvious that those who rise to the positions of power in America, are the ones who have given free rein to their thirst.

sorry again for the length.

paul

[ September 19, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: apauling ]

 

[macmikeman]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

Paul, I am printing out that post and hanging it up on my office wall. Very well done. Macmikeman.

 

[realolman]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

Very nicely said.
My hat is off.

Althought this could easily turn political, this thread does seem to be about ethics.

There have been laws passed and interpreted recently in ways I never would have dreamed possible in America.

You are right on in your assessment of politicians.

Do you have any suggestions Apauling?

 

[petersonra]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

The real answer is unpleasant.

1. Stop electing the same people to office, over and over again.

2. When a government program has failed miserably in its stated purpose, have the spine to kill it off. Most of the great society programs would fall into that category. They were sold to the public as a way of reducing the level of poverty. Instead, these programs have guaranteed a certain level of poverty will always exist because we subsidize poverty.

neither of these things is likely to happen. way too many people like it the way it is because they think they can beat the system to their own benefit.

 

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

I would only suggest one thing, and that is with a caveat.

Remove money from the process of electing our representatives, including all forms of pacs, attack groups. Insure the voting integrity. Become involved in the process of seeking the best representation possible for your beliefs as well as the country's health and it's place in the whole world. Become un-disintersted.

The caveat is a comment made by a homeowner I did some electrical work for. We were talking (not always agreeing) and he said, "You know, paul, if you and I ran the country it sure would be different, but it might not be any better".

It was said in a way that i took it to heart. It is what allows me to let go of the angst during bad times.

After disasters and major upheavals, there seems to be a possibility for social betterment, even if down the road those changes become corrupted. it always will be an uphill struggle.

again, sorry for the soap box in a technical forum.

paul

 

[petersonra]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

"Getting the money out of politics" is a great sound bite, but really awful public policy.

Getting tax favored money out of politics is a great idea. So is money extorted from those who have no choice in either giving it or how it is used. As is the elimination of public money spent on politics.

The reason many congress critters and media people are so in favor of recent "reforms" has absolutely nothing to do improving anything. It has to do with increasing the power of incumbency, and increasing the power of the media.

Do you really want a system where you can't take out an ad and speak your piece? That is exactly what you have advocated.

No amount of money can force any voter to vote for any particular candidate. In most cases, once you are in the voting booth, the voter has complete discretion to vote as he/she sees fit.

[ September 20, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: petersonra ]

 

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

your assumption is that the paid media is the only public media. There are several options to keeping the power of money out of the election process, and that is to fund public debates, forums, and force equal public "air" time. It is not impossible, and it is the greed of the media that claims it cannot give that time to the public. The monied media certainly gives the president air time.

Money will always be in politics, but the percent of legal money will increase dramatically with less money influenced elections.. Remember Agnew or whatever his name was, a vp forced out of office for blatant corruption. We can at least return to the pretense of integrity, and have laws in place to help with the legitimizing our elections.

We, as a group, are far more likely to have opinions of some merit, as compared with the focused groups that are hit right before the voting. Fear based last minute ads drive quite a few older people to follow the ads goal.

Since WW2 (when social psychology was born, created by the gov't to help sell war bonds) social psychologists have been studying ways to influence groups of people; not caring for the individual holdouts, but the over all percentage. If you want an eye opener, take a course in social psychology at your local JC, and find out just how much of this goes on, how much even the "conscious" are influenced.

Money can be taken out of the process with an effort on the part of the public. Remember, theoretically at least, they are our servants; and we are not minions to be controlled by them. It is we who cannot seem to take the time and effort away from the treadmill to take back our country from remote politicians who think we all earn gobs of money, can be controlled by deceptive posturing, sloganizing, fear, pretense, "the bottom line", and all the other language twisting BS.

They won't do it by themselves, either party.

If you knew how well they retired, how seperated they are from us, how they have insulated themselves from repercussions for their actions, and how they keep on planning to do more of the same, you would be as adamant as I about the need for taking back the election process.

paul

 

[realolman]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

No amount of money can force any voter to vote for any particular candidate.

I can't remember the last time I wanted to vote for either candidate. Money allows only a certain few to be available to vote for.

With the recent ballot fiascos in Florida, there is renewed support for computerized voting. What scares me is apparently there is no hard copy record. Hmmmm... I wonder why that would be. Heck they give you a reciept for a pack of gum at the store.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

My guess is that there is no hard copy record because no one thought to require it in the spec when the bids were let.

I like ballots that can be recounted if necessary. The punch cards worked fine, as do the new optical scanned ones.

The touchscreen units bother me because the only record is electronic or one printed out by the machine and is unauditable.

The "fiasco" in Florida worked itself out quite well. The candidate with the most valid votes won. Thats the way the system is supposed to work.

The situation in the Washington state governors race show what can happen when evil people count the ballots, and recount, and recount, and finall have enough time to manufacture enough new votes in a close election to throw the race to the person who did not actually win.

This has happened more than once in close elections, and is not something easy to control. It requires honest people running elections and there is always a tendancy to "help" the election of the guy you think ought to win.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

Originally posted by realolman:
Heck they give you a reciept for a pack of gum at the store.

That's an example of free-enterprise versus the government. For the government, printing a receipt after voting is an unforeseen, difficult to execute action that would cost billions to commence.

Meanwhile, at the local 7-Eleven... :roll:

 

[apauling]

Re: Bad Inspector or Bad Expectations?

i like the idea of hard copy as well, especially when the program designer was very high up the ladder of one party. Not that i am that cynical

Why is it so hard to get for ourselves what we claim we are giving these other nations that we are "helping" to democracy. It almost is treated as unpatriotic to keep insisting on some kind of voting integrity.

it is definitely easier to accept a political defeat when you can trust that the voting is authentic, at least here on the political bottom. We do have a history of vote tampering, so there is always some suspicion.

We're going down the road of transmitting the election results over tamperable pathways. The gov't won't get in on the act of insuring the net's viability with CC transactions, as if it weren't interstate commerce, but were going to trust it for our election results. non sequiter, non compus mentus, and more posturing and photo ops, but no actual delivery of substance.

paul