Privatizing inspectors

[renosteinke]

Pretty much everything folks are trotting out has been discussed for centuries. It all boils down to two choices: Government tyranny or personal freedom.

Our forefathers saw the dead-end that the governmental approach led to - half a century before Marx & company enshrined central government with a whole new venom. (The road to Hell being paved with good intentions) That's why this country adopted so much of the Swiss model, where nearly all government is fragmented among the localities. A deliberate choice was made to risk losing the benefits of government doing the 'right' thing on a large scale, simply because the cost of government doing the 'wrong' thing was so high. (It's referred to as 'not putting all your eggs in one basket.'}

Adam Smith addressed these issued two centuries ago, and (more recently) Milton Freedman expounded upon them.

Government's only interest is safety? Even (witholding snippy remarks) assuming that, 'pure motives' have shown time and again to accomplish exactly the opposite.

Lack of sufficient oversight? That's quite contestable, and ignores the penalties of excessive oversight.

It pains me to see so many automacally endorsing the idea of "uniform codes" and 'national standards,' when we need only look at the local city council to see just how poorly governemnt operates. It's sort of like asserting a rock will float better, if only we make it bigger ...

-x-x-x-x-x

Look at it from a personal perspective: who is more likely to have a safer home? The guy who owns it free and clear, or the guy who's only staying there? The guy who calls his own shots, or the guy who has to get all his neighbors to chip in? The guy who can stand (or fall) on his own, or the guy whose fate is permanently linked to that of others?

I just did a service change on my own home. Did I try to do the least possible at the lowest possible cost? Yet, when a landlord calls for a service change on the apartments other folks live in, does he care nearly as much?

In terms of construction, there's not much difference between an inner-city housing project and a 5-star hotel downtown. Why are they so different? Very simply, because the motel guest can vote with his pocketbook; the welfare mama has her housing assigned to her, and zero mobility.

Free markets work - every time they're tried.

 

[nhfire77]

Look at it from a personal perspective: who is more likely to have a safer home? The guy who owns it free and clear, or the guy who's only staying there? The guy who calls his own shots, or the guy who has to get all his neighbors to chip in? The guy who can stand (or fall) on his own, or the guy whose fate is permanently linked to that of others?

I just did a service change on my own home. Did I try to do the least possible at the lowest possible cost? Yet, when a landlord calls for a service change on the apartments other folks live in, does he care nearly as much?

In terms of construction, there's not much difference between an inner-city housing project and a 5-star hotel downtown. Why are they so different? Very simply, because the motel guest can vote with his pocketbook; the welfare mama has her housing assigned to her, and zero mobility.

Free markets work - every time they're tried.

Regarding the quote above, and no other items in this thread, please:

How do I vote with my pocketbook if a private company is performing inspections?

There is only one in the jurisdiction right?

So, how is that different than a municipal inspector?

 

[kwired]

Regarding the quote above, and no other items in this thread, please:

How do I vote with my pocketbook if a private company is performing inspections?

There is only one in the jurisdiction right?

So, how is that different than a municipal inspector?

That is why if it is privatized it still needs to be contracted for a certain time period and when that period is up, bids are open for the next period. If there is multiple contractors in the jurisdiction doing inspections, there better be a way to keep them all on same page and to prevent them from developing a relationship with particular EC's, or getting into other unfair situations.

 

[kwired]

Pretty much everything folks are trotting out has been discussed for centuries. It all boils down to two choices: Government tyranny or personal freedom.

Our forefathers saw the dead-end that the governmental approach led to - half a century before Marx & company enshrined central government with a whole new venom. (The road to Hell being paved with good intentions) That's why this country adopted so much of the Swiss model, where nearly all government is fragmented among the localities. A deliberate choice was made to risk losing the benefits of government doing the 'right' thing on a large scale, simply because the cost of government doing the 'wrong' thing was so high. (It's referred to as 'not putting all your eggs in one basket.'}

Adam Smith addressed these issued two centuries ago, and (more recently) Milton Freedman expounded upon them.

Government's only interest is safety? Even (witholding snippy remarks) assuming that, 'pure motives' have shown time and again to accomplish exactly the opposite.

Lack of sufficient oversight? That's quite contestable, and ignores the penalties of excessive oversight.

It pains me to see so many automacally endorsing the idea of "uniform codes" and 'national standards,' when we need only look at the local city council to see just how poorly governemnt operates. It's sort of like asserting a rock will float better, if only we make it bigger ...

-x-x-x-x-x

Look at it from a personal perspective: who is more likely to have a safer home? The guy who owns it free and clear, or the guy who's only staying there? The guy who calls his own shots, or the guy who has to get all his neighbors to chip in? The guy who can stand (or fall) on his own, or the guy whose fate is permanently linked to that of others?

I just did a service change on my own home. Did I try to do the least possible at the lowest possible cost? Yet, when a landlord calls for a service change on the apartments other folks live in, does he care nearly as much?

In terms of construction, there's not much difference between an inner-city housing project and a 5-star hotel downtown. Why are they so different? Very simply, because the motel guest can vote with his pocketbook; the welfare mama has her housing assigned to her, and zero mobility.

Free markets work - every time they're tried.

To quote the late Paul Harvey "self government won't work without self discipline"

People want freedom from rules and regulations, they want things at as little cost as necessary, but when something goes wrong they want to drag anyone they can blame for their own wants into a lawsuit.

Many laws we have that seem ridiculous, including building related codes, are there to protect us from ourselves

 

[RICK NAPIER]

I work for a third party (private company) in my state. All inspectors private and public have the same licensing requirements. A town will put out a notice for third party bids. The contract can be for up to three years. The town I work has a one year contract renewable up to three years. We are entering our third 3 year contract cycle with this town and I have worked here for other companies before that. The third party bid is based on a percentage of state fees, that is the third party tells the town what percentage of the fees charged by the state for the same work they would charge. There is no additional fees for reinspections. There are additional fees for additional work that is if you were to add a service, additional equipment etcetera.

This system works pretty well. I have seen an equal amount of good and bad inspectors in the private and public sector. Years ago I worked for a short time in an adjacent state where they used private inspectors that the contractor would pick. The system was rife with corruption. In six weeks I was twice asked how much it would take to make the failed sticker go away. I took a pay cut to come back to NJ. Years later a number of public inspectors went to jail and many private and public inspectors were forced to find a different line of work.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I work for a third party (private company) in my state. All inspectors private and public have the same licensing requirements. A town will put out a notice for third party bids. The contract can be for up to three years. The town I work has a one year contract renewable up to three years. We are entering our third 3 year contract cycle with this town and I have worked here for other companies before that. The third party bid is based on a percentage of state fees, that is the third party tells the town what percentage of the fees charged by the state for the same work they would charge. There is no additional fees for reinspections. There are additional fees for additional work that is if you were to add a service, additional equipment etcetera.

This system works pretty well. I have seen an equal amount of good and bad inspectors in the private and public sector. Years ago I worked for a short time in an adjacent state where they used private inspectors that the contractor would pick. The system was rife with corruption. In six weeks I was twice asked how much it would take to make the failed sticker go away. I took a pay cut to come back to NJ. Years later a number of public inspectors went to jail and many private and public inspectors were forced to find a different line of work.

So Rick, just for my own clairification, let's say we now charge $80 for a service change permit, you still charge the same $80 but your company takes (just for example) 20% as their fee?

 

[iwire]

Introducing market forces into an issue does a fine job of eliminating the fraud, graft, corruption, malfeasance, and bureaucratic 'drag' that is so much a part of governmental involvement.

:blink:

I think you just shift it to a different group, people are people.

 

[readydave8]

So you guys must not understand how privatization works. QUOTE]I'm pretty sure I don't understand, but while reading this thread I keep wondering if the post office was privatized a few years ago? And is this privatization similiar or different?

 

[nhfire77]

That is why if it is privatized it still needs to be contracted for a certain time period and when that period is up, bids are open for the next period. If there is multiple contractors in the jurisdiction doing inspections, there better be a way to keep them all on same page and to prevent them from developing a relationship with particular EC's, or getting into other unfair situations.

When its muni personnel, its isolated, even if there is only one guy for one town. Private adds more layers between the decision makers (ahj or elected officials) and the voters. Yes, costs may, may go down. But at what indirect costs? With a company, when issues arise, you have additional levels of bureaucracy (private business on top of the municipality) to wade through. It is penny wise and pound foolish.

Unless they are operating with local day to day control, there is no monitoring the business. Regardless of how 'open' they claim to be, the business will still hide and cover up items that could lead to PR or profitability issues.


I want those directly responsible for the safety of my community to live here and be vested in it personally, not just financially. You have no control of that with a company. They do not care. One might argue, they need the community to succeed. Construction needs to occur for their revenue to flow. I couldn't agree more. Businesses are not all designed for long term. Their number one goal is to increase value of stock and the returns paid to the owners. To hell with the people. Its a business decision, as it should be. And that is why it has no place in muni inspections.

Do you really think there is LESS fraud and malfeasance in the private sector? Oh you read about a lot less, but its covered up better. Seriously!

 

[renosteinke]

"Only one private firm"
I would not assume that. Indeed, trading a government monopoly for a privateone would only remove the restraint of the ballot box and constitutional limitations from the function - hardly an improvement, and not a 'free' market at all.
No, there is no need to have but one private contractor. Again, looking to the Missouri DMV model, each office is a separate 'franchise,' and folks may use any they wish. There are distinct differences between various offices - and folks rarely return to the less pleasant ones. This, in turn, has led to the 'turnover' of several offices, as the poor operators suffer a loss of business.

"People are people"
I won't argue with that. The 'free' market holds folks' misbehaviour in check by hitting them in the pocketbook. Poor job=Poor performance. It cares not whether your motives are saintly, or not. The simple fact is that fraud and malfeasance have costs - and a free market will not let those costs be passed on to the customer.

There's the keys: Customers, and choice.

To return to an earlier example: even the best landlord cannot do a better job of choosing for a tenant than the tenant can do for himself. It's a problem we face in our businesses every day, where the "customer" who pays us is not the "customer" who uses our work. That's where "home inspectors" find a market, as they work for the prospective buyer, rather than the seller (as the realtor represents the seller).

City inspectors work for .... is it the Union? The Civil Service Commission? The mayor? Whoever it is, it's not the guy living in the house he's inspecting. It's a fair bet that City Hall has concerns that have precious little connection with 'safety' or 'quality.'

Ditto the matter of choice. The other day I went into a burger joint, and it was no fun. What do you think the chances are that today's lunch will come from the place across the street? When it comes to city inspections, you have no choice- and the cities like it that way.

I'll make a suggestion, throw down the gauntlet, to all of you who think government is the proper way to have inspections. Let's try THIS:
Just open up your 'process' to allow the 'customer' (the homeowner) to have the permitting and inspections handled by any government body within, say, fifty miles. Let the customer decide which bureaucracy to pay. Let that bureaucracy keep the fees.
I mean ... just to pull a location at random .... would anyone seriously suggest that the inspectors in St. Paul are any less competent than the ones in Minneapolis? Letting the customer choose would introduce some market forces into the equation.

 

[iwire]

OK, picture an area that has privatized. Lets say there are only two inspection companies available.

'Billy's blind as a bat inspections' and 'Ned the nit picker inspections'.


Which of these companies will be more commonly chosen by an EC?


Which of the companies is more likely to do the job right?

 

[iwire]

Regarding the quote above, and no other items in this thread, please:

How do I vote with my pocketbook if a private company is performing inspections?

There is only one in the jurisdiction right?

I know in parts of New York there are multiple inspecting companies competing for the ECs business.

In my opinion that can only reduce the effectiveness of the inspections.

 

[iwire]

I'll make a suggestion, throw down the gauntlet, to all of you who think government is the proper way to have inspections.

I do think it is the right way.


The inspection process is not an area that should be left up to the lowest bidder.

 

[petersonra]

I do think it is the right way.


The inspection process is not an area that should be left up to the lowest bidder.

is there any objective evidence that suggests that government employees do a better job of inspections?

I do think it is important that the inspection agency be at least somewhat independant of the entity being inspected.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the country but until recently around here the good old boy network was in full operating mode and basically union contractors got an all but complete pass on any serious inspection while non-union contractors got nitpicked.

It has since improved considerably but the local still has pretty much a lock on where inspectors are hired from.

 

[kwired]

"Only one private firm"
I would not assume that. Indeed, trading a government monopoly for a privateone would only remove the restraint of the ballot box and constitutional limitations from the function - hardly an improvement, and not a 'free' market at all.
No, there is no need to have but one private contractor. Again, looking to the Missouri DMV model, each office is a separate 'franchise,' and folks may use any they wish. There are distinct differences between various offices - and folks rarely return to the less pleasant ones. This, in turn, has led to the 'turnover' of several offices, as the poor operators suffer a loss of business.

"People are people"
I won't argue with that. The 'free' market holds folks' misbehaviour in check by hitting them in the pocketbook. Poor job=Poor performance. It cares not whether your motives are saintly, or not. The simple fact is that fraud and malfeasance have costs - and a free market will not let those costs be passed on to the customer.

There's the keys: Customers, and choice.

To return to an earlier example: even the best landlord cannot do a better job of choosing for a tenant than the tenant can do for himself. It's a problem we face in our businesses every day, where the "customer" who pays us is not the "customer" who uses our work. That's where "home inspectors" find a market, as they work for the prospective buyer, rather than the seller (as the realtor represents the seller).

City inspectors work for .... is it the Union? The Civil Service Commission? The mayor? Whoever it is, it's not the guy living in the house he's inspecting. It's a fair bet that City Hall has concerns that have precious little connection with 'safety' or 'quality.'

Ditto the matter of choice. The other day I went into a burger joint, and it was no fun. What do you think the chances are that today's lunch will come from the place across the street? When it comes to city inspections, you have no choice- and the cities like it that way.

I'll make a suggestion, throw down the gauntlet, to all of you who think government is the proper way to have inspections. Let's try THIS:
Just open up your 'process' to allow the 'customer' (the homeowner) to have the permitting and inspections handled by any government body within, say, fifty miles. Let the customer decide which bureaucracy to pay. Let that bureaucracy keep the fees.
I mean ... just to pull a location at random .... would anyone seriously suggest that the inspectors in St. Paul are any less competent than the ones in Minneapolis? Letting the customer choose would introduce some market forces into the equation.

Your comments are more valid in metropolitan areas, come to where I live. The inspector that serves the county I live in is more than 50 miles away. I am on one end of the district and he is on the opposite end. But go out into the less populated western part of the state and it gets even farther for many. No private organization is likely to have much interest in taking over this territory either as I am sure it will not be very profitable without significantly raising the fees over what they are now. Sure there are higher population areas within the district that will make up some losses in the low population areas, but good business management would otherwise dictate you raise rates, and the state organization that is self supporting is basing its fees on the statewide funds not just individual districts.

 

[iwire]

is there any objective evidence that suggests that government employees do a better job of inspections?

I do not have any thing about that.

What I do have is a very strong belief that when a inspection companies livelihood is directly tied to the looseness of the inspections that will not produce better enforcement.

There is no way an inspection company with a tough reputation is going to be selected by most ECs.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

So Rick, just for my own clairification, let's say we now charge $80 for a service change permit, you still charge the same $80 but your company takes (just for example) 20% as their fee?

How it works is if we were at 80% and the state fee was $80 then our fee would be $64 to which the municipaltiy can add an administrative fee of 15% for $12 for a total of $76. There are also some small state fees in every permit. The minicipality may raise thier percentage if it is not adequate to cover expenses. In theory the building department is suppose to be self supportive and not a money maker for the towns. In practice small towns do not have enough money to support the department and need to pump money into the department and profitable towns charge the building department large fees for office space, computers, cars, etctera to get their share of the money.

 

[kwired]

I do not have any thing about that.

What I do have is a very strong belief that when a inspection companies livelihood is directly tied to the looseness of the inspections that will not produce better enforcement.

There is no way an inspection company with a tough reputation is going to be selected by most ECs.

And that kind of gets us back to whether or not if done by private organizations, if there should be one company that does the entire AHJ area or if competitors should be allowed to cover the same territories. If the latter is true EC's are going to pick their favorite, but does not mean enforcement of the rules will be uniform throughout the AHJ. Sure there will be differences from one individual inspector to the next no matter who employs them, but there needs to be uniform processes and attempts to keep operation practices the same throughout the AHJ to be as fair as possible to everyone.

 

[hillbilly1]

OK, picture an area that has privatized. Lets say there are only two inspection companies available.

'Billy's blind as a bat inspections' and 'Ned the nit picker inspections'.


Which of these companies will be more commonly chosen by an EC?


Which of the companies is more likely to do the job right?

I have to agree with Bob, even though government inspections in some areas are tainted by political corruption, or inspectors have to inspect everything, even things they know nothing about, the only way to keep it on the up and up with privatized inspections would be some sort of lottery system, where luck of the draw would get you Billy, or Ned

 

[cowboyjwc]

"Only one private firm"
I would not assume that. Indeed, trading a government monopoly for a privateone would only remove the restraint of the ballot box and constitutional limitations from the function - hardly an improvement, and not a 'free' market at all.
No, there is no need to have but one private contractor. Again, looking to the Missouri DMV model, each office is a separate 'franchise,' and folks may use any they wish. There are distinct differences between various offices - and folks rarely return to the less pleasant ones. This, in turn, has led to the 'turnover' of several offices, as the poor operators suffer a loss of business.

"People are people"
I won't argue with that. The 'free' market holds folks' misbehaviour in check by hitting them in the pocketbook. Poor job=Poor performance. It cares not whether your motives are saintly, or not. The simple fact is that fraud and malfeasance have costs - and a free market will not let those costs be passed on to the customer.

There's the keys: Customers, and choice.

To return to an earlier example: even the best landlord cannot do a better job of choosing for a tenant than the tenant can do for himself. It's a problem we face in our businesses every day, where the "customer" who pays us is not the "customer" who uses our work. That's where "home inspectors" find a market, as they work for the prospective buyer, rather than the seller (as the realtor represents the seller).

City inspectors work for .... is it the Union? The Civil Service Commission? The mayor? Whoever it is, it's not the guy living in the house he's inspecting. It's a fair bet that City Hall has concerns that have precious little connection with 'safety' or 'quality.'

Ditto the matter of choice. The other day I went into a burger joint, and it was no fun. What do you think the chances are that today's lunch will come from the place across the street? When it comes to city inspections, you have no choice- and the cities like it that way.

I'll make a suggestion, throw down the gauntlet, to all of you who think government is the proper way to have inspections. Let's try THIS:
Just open up your 'process' to allow the 'customer' (the homeowner) to have the permitting and inspections handled by any government body within, say, fifty miles. Let the customer decide which bureaucracy to pay. Let that bureaucracy keep the fees.
I mean ... just to pull a location at random .... would anyone seriously suggest that the inspectors in St. Paul are any less competent than the ones in Minneapolis? Letting the customer choose would introduce some market forces into the equation.

I think that you are very mistaken, of course I work for the homeowner, or the electrician or whoever it was that pulled the permit. Of course we care about safety, I live in a house that I inspected, though at the time I inspected it, I didn't know I would be living in it, I go into the businesses that I inspected, the stores and the theaters and the gyms and the pools, and I live in town and am involved in the community so I see many of these people on a daily basis. I go to jobs and there are my friends standing at the door. Of course I have a concern with "safety" and "quality".