Measure 63
Jeff Alworth
Title: Exempts specified property owners from building permit requirements for improvements valued at/under 35,000 dollars
Sponsor: Bill Sizemore, Alan Grosso
Type: Statutory
What it Does: Homeowners doing less than $35k of work on their house would be exempt from government permits
What it Costs: Nothing; revenue of $4-$8 million would be lost annual, but would be matched by cost reductions of the same amount
Discussion
Although it seems like a story the opposition made up to make Bill Sizemore look bad, it's actually the true story behind this measure. One day, Sizemore was in a Home Depot and he started asking around, and it turns out that homeowners are deciding not to do home improvements because they'd have to pull a permit. The outraged Sizemore decided this was exactly the kind of thing he should put in front of voters, so he has: under Measure 63, if a guy want to rewire his house, as long as he's doing it for less than $35,000, he's good to go.
What happens if he's your neighbor and his house burns down, taking out that pretty magnolia between your properties and scorching the south side of your house? Umm, well...
There are a great many arguments to mounted against this measure, which appears to have been reflected on for all of about six minutes before Sizemore submitted it (why $35k?--Sizemore said "it seemed like a good number"). Here's an economist's take, as one rich example. But the most potent is also the most obvious: building codes weren't dreamed up as a nuisance to homeowners--they are there to protect homeowners and other residents. Removing the permitting process will result in accidents large and small that will affect the health and environment of the state. We have seen the effect of de-regulation on Wall Street; let's not inflict it on our building codes, too.
For these reasons, firefighters, mayors, counties, legislators, insurers, and environmental groups oppose the measure. As with Sizemore's other half-baked schemes, this has earned its across-the-board opposition. Voters should oppose it, as well.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 20, '08
Sizemore = NO
So simple, it's scary.
4:02 p.m.
Oct 20, '08
I hope Mr Sizemore's insurance agent gets wind of this, does an inspection of his home, and either doubles his premium (it seems a good number) or drops him entirely.
Oct 20, '08
A lot of people talk about this measure in terms of the building codes and being able to completely build a house from foundation to roof if done over a period of years - but that's not my interest.
As an Appraiser, I know that a house either completely or partly built in this manner will NOT be able to be conventionally financed. If there are no permits, there is no loan. It's really, really hard to sell real estate without being able to get a mortgage loan. So, for most people, this measure is a "shoot yourself in the foot" invitation.
What I would have been okay with, would be out buildings. If someone wants to build a detached shop, barn, or storage building; it is a pain to pull a permit. Right now, if I want to build a simple carport for two cars, I have to pull a permit. Only sheds and the like under 200 s.f. are exempt from permits. So, if the measure were to have said that any non-residential structure, more than 15 feet from a property line, of less than $35,000 cost per the State of Oregon's cost manual (they have one for County Assessor's), and of less than 1,000 s.f. in size would be exempt - I'd say yes.
But what is written is a total mess - no thank you.
Oct 20, '08
Does anyone believe that these Sizemore measures are more than just an attempt to project his anti-government motives on an unsuspecting public.
Hmm.. Isn't anyone who tries to dismantle our government risk being classified as a "terrorist" these days?
Oct 20, '08
It sounds like the quality of work Sizemore put in to this ballot measure is on par with the quality of work we might expect from some unqualified do-it-yer-selfers if it passes. Scary.
Hey Sizemore, get a real job! Make yourself useful to society.
5:33 p.m.
Oct 20, '08
As a neighborhood association president, I'm also worried about how this would affect neighbor notification laws/rules set forth in many cities.
For instance, here in Gresham there are rules stating that certain kinds of work require notification of the neighbors surrounding where the work would be done. Not only that, but the neighborhood association can also choose to hold a meeting on the topic.
Without the permit process, the neighborhood notification process doesn't work either.
People forget that part of the permit process is to ensure that all codes, rules, etc. are followed during construction. That's not only to ensure that it's safe, but also so that set standards regarding design, distance from the edge of the property, privacy, etc. are followed as well.
It may be a pain to go through all of this when you're the one wanting to do the work, but imagine how you'd feel if someone was doing that work in the yard next door.
Rather than voting on something like this, maybe we all need to encourage our cities to take a thorough look at their permitting process and see what can be done to make the process easier and more straightforward.
It would also be a good idea to see what can be done to try to make the processes similar across a region.
Oct 20, '08
Sorry for being Off Topic, but how about a post on the East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District Director candidates? I have no idea who these people are or how to choose between them (Peter Finley Fry isn't even in the voters pamphlet).
Back On Topic... I had my kitchen completely remodeled for less than $35,000. Also serious work like a new electric panel only cost $1000 - $2000. That's something that should definitely require a permit. This one is just plain dumb.
Oct 20, '08
I noted that the "arguments against" section of the voter pamphlet is filled with horror stories about fires caused by shoddy remodeling where the owner had failed to apply for a permit. Isn't that really evidence that having a permit process doesn't ensure safety in the first place?
In my opinion a better argument against this measure is that to the extent that city building inspectors are paid for by permit fees, this will limit the ability of tenants to request an inspection of property they're renting. Or, that it will force building inspectors's salaries down, increasing their incentive to accept bribes.
Oct 20, '08
From the Oregon Economics Blog:
Agreed, but what is the probability and the value of the cost? It's not impossible that our building permit process actually decreases the average safety of houses, although I doubt that's true. Has anyone promoting this or opposing it made any attempt at all to quantify that? The claim of M. 63 is that the permit process produces overall inefficiencies. So if some people simply suspect it does, and other people simply suspect it doesn't, then unfortunately we don't have much of a conversation.Oct 20, '08
I have not been in Texas in a number of years, but as I recall they have no building permit process, nor building codes for buildings going up in unincorporated parts of their counties. Besides isn't this process just a subsidy for the mortgage industry and shouldn't your insurance agency be doing their own inspecting?
TLG
Oct 20, '08
People are very uniform in their behavior. That's why community policing works. You don't just go out and decide to commit a petty crime unless you do worse. So, the little filters can actually work.
Sounds like outrageous right-winged theory- and I wouldn't generalize the principle- but I mention it because this statute works quite nicely as a practical implementation thereof.
There have been 7 ocasions, in the last 10 years, where there has been a neighbor that was a problem, on any scale you want to use. Always just out of touch, each engaged in an unauthorized building addition. Wait until it's almost over, cite 'em, and they'll talk turkey. All model citizens afterward, and they added to city coffers.
And it isn't always petty. One lived up the hill from 42nd Ave and stuck a huge DYI pool in the backyard without any permits. That wouldn't be a trivial problem if the engineering were screwed up.
Very practical reg.
Oct 20, '08
"I noted that the "arguments against" section of the voter pamphlet is filled with horror stories about fires caused by shoddy remodeling where the owner had failed to apply for a permit. Isn't that really evidence that having a permit process doesn't ensure safety in the first place?"
Sure, scofflaws break traffic laws all the time, but just because some idiot runs a red light and T-bones you is not an argument traffic laws don't ensure greater safety.
I'm a retired residential building contractor. Building permits and inspections were an everyday headache. But I'll tell you, I'd hate to do business without them. Inspections are progressive, before I could button up a house there was inspection of my nailing schedule (there were nails every 4 inches along sheathing edges, and every 6 in the field, on every piece. Wiring and plumbing was done to code before I covered it up. Roof had hurricane clips every 12". The list of structural details goes on and on). By getting an inspection I had a third-party assurance that my workmanship was solid and followed plan, down to the nail and screw. I refused to build non-permitted work, the liability was simply too high.
I suppose a home owner could schedule private inspections during construction, but what codes would be applicable? I can imagine called insurance companies and scheduling periodic inspections. Can you come out Tuesday, I have concrete trucks coming Wednesday... oh well, I'm retired so it's somebody else's headache now.
Oct 20, '08
Ron: No, it's not an argument, but it is evidence. In fact, a lot of traffic laws might not ensure greater safety. Lots of places in Europe have been having success with removing traffic controls at some intersections -- it forces people to pay more attention and drive more carefully when they don't have the false sense of security provided by a green light.
10:42 p.m.
Oct 20, '08
Joel, it's evidence, but not convincing evidence and you also seem to be mixing up what you're saying it's evidence of.
It's evidence that not everyone complies. For it to be evidence that the "permitting process doesn't work" in the sense that it's routinely ignored or often enough to constitute "not working" in terms of high non-compliance, you'd need to a) define a level of non-compliance that constitutes "not working" in those terms and b) show evidence that it rises to that level.
The fact that Sizemore feels constrained to put this on that ballot is also evidence, on the contrary, that people generally do follow the permitting process. The implications that several people have mentioned give a good idea why they would do so. I say that the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
But you then raise a different sense of "not working" which is "not producing the intended result of better safety." Here your proposal that it might not be working is entirely speculative and you provide no evidence whatever that I can see.
In speaking of "efficiencies" you don't specify efficiency of what. I infer you mean cost efficiency and maybe time efficiency. To me you have to put in health and safety efficiency too, and then discuss the terms on which we should evaluate the trade-offs.
As for traffic, I don't think what you say can be advanced as a principle. Before engaging in it I'd want to know a lot more about whether there is any kind of theory or evidence about which situations may produce the results you mention -- because it certainly isn't going to be all.
I grew up a block from an intersection where there was a stop sign on one busy road, and not on another on which we lived, coming curved up a hill, plus a sloped bank on the right side corner lot as you came up the hill that obscured the view to the left when you were on the stop signed street, and of those vehicles for traffic coming up the hill. Every year there were several collisions due to either people not taking the stop sign seriously enough or to speeders coming up the hill who couldn't see a vehicle that had stopped properly and started forward. After years of lobbying it finally was made into a four-way stop.
The effect would also depend on local driving cultures and expectations. I remember my father who was from Chicago telling me about an experience driving in Iowa I think, I forget which was which, but the point was that in one area the common thing was for people to run yellow lights when they were "pink" so to speak, whereas in the other the common thing was for people to "jump the green" and go a little early in anticipation. Put drivers from one place in the other, and you've got problems.
Oct 20, '08
I moved here 3yr's ago my house was not signed off the final inspection from the previous owner. I learned about it from the realestate agent 2wks after sale closed. I looked at a property for sale with a bad septic system. owner said"no sweat a friend of mine will replace it for 200.00. I replied,Yes but the permit is 250.00. Owner replied the fine for no permit is only 50.00. I do my own work. 30 yrs. comm+res. const and remodel. had a shower enclosure fall off wall when done by a well recommended repair man. This,in spite of Sizemore is really a reflection of how things are. especially out here in the sticks. The permit system is really too complicated to work and the inspectors are petty,and condesending. I lost my first job as an electriction mecause I refused to put a bottle of whiskey in the inspectors truck. and it was cheap whiskey! 70%of the contractors in this mero area speak bull**** to baffel the liberal geeks and inflate the job.
Oct 21, '08
Joel,
Actually the anecdotes of idiots ignoring the permit process and getting crispy-fried seems to me to be compelling evidence that participating in the building permit and inspection system is a pretty good deal if you don't want to end up getting crispy-fried.
Oct 21, '08
Another argument for a NO vote is this - I do not own a home. So I feel that since I do not have a home, any issue regarding home repair is really none of my business. I really shouldn't vote on it at all, but I really do not care for the abuse Sizemore is doing to the initiative process as a whole.
But still - No home, none of my business.
Oct 21, '08
I think the permitting process has become too intrusive in many ways. Lots of simple things the average do it yourselfer can do adequately and safely technically require permits and so they get done on the sly. So the intent here makes some sense to me. The problem is the dollar amount. $35,0000 is way too high. I might go for something with a much lower figure that did not include electrical work.
Oct 21, '08
Chris: I'm aware that people often blow through stop signs, just as I'm aware that people often ignore safe building practices. These really do make everyone less safe, but they aren't evidence that just anything you think might stop them would be a good idea. I also never said that the permit process wasn't working. It's obviously working for some people: it gives them an uninformed but warm and fuzzy feeling of security. It works for people in your industry who get more business because people like me are too intimidated by the system to spend much time learning how the permit process works. It works for the building inspection industry, and it works for local government treasuries. Does it do what it's claimed to do, and actually increase safety and decrease costs? I've never seen evidence for that, and your intuition isn't evidence.
Ron: What about anecdotes of people obeying the permit process and getting crispy-fried? Are those relevant?
Oct 21, '08
Dave: Actually this measure does require electrical work to be inspected.
Oct 21, '08
Joel, Thanks for clarifying that. Puts quite a different light on the argument that your neighbor is going to cause your house to burn down.
Oct 21, '08
Well, the argument is that electricians will be reluctant to approve someone else's work, and that there won't be any enforcement of this anyway. I think that argument is probably accurate, actually.
Oct 21, '08
In some places the permit system has been turned into an alternative tax system. Much like the little city north of Eugene that used traffic stops on I5 to fund their own little spending spree. I've dealt with one local government that loves to charge money for insignificant items. I had to pull a permit to move a downspout on my gutters. Most people already ignore stupid rules like that since it is obviously just a money grab by city hall. I'll probably vote for this measure just as a protest vote. I think the dollar amount is too high but I like the general idea.
Oct 21, '08
andy...by voting yes on any Sizemore measure, you are encouraging him to abuse the system even more by becoming an enabler. Sizemore could care less about the issue. He cares mopre about how he can get his jollies out of making us suffer with disengenous garbage to vote on.
Oct 21, '08
Well, Loren Parks can't live forever. As soon as he kicks the bucket Sizemore will be out of business.
1:41 p.m.
Oct 21, '08
Eric is right, Sizemore has even admitted he hears people bitching in line at Home Depot and formulates a plan to capitalize on that by writing a ballot initiative. He pulls the dollar figures right out of his butt, and puts no effort into crafting a quality law, it's just the fastest thing he can write and get onto a clip board. For him thee is no concern whatsoever about the purpose of any initiative, it is just a means to make money for him. Sizemore's lazy, sloppy 'work' is a constant drain on Oregon's delicate fiscal resources and he should think about perhaps moving to Alaska where they seem to have a more gullible electorate ripe for the picking.
1:45 p.m.
Oct 21, '08
As a representative of the Oregon Remodelers Ass., I ahve studied this measure in depth. It is flawed both in concept and in details. Permits are the trigger for enforcement of law requiring licensed professionals to do the work (nobody checks if the building office isn't notified that work is being done), and it is the trigger for inspections. Licensed tradespeople want their work inspected by a third party- that's why unions and contractor oppose this measure. There are many dangers besides fire from unlicensed work that is not inspected: gas leaks and explosions, backflows and sewage leaks, structural failures, expecially in storms and earthquakes, lack of proper emergency exiting, etc. Being a Sizemore product, it is typically flawed in it drafting. Even Bill and his cohorts admit this, and are ask for the legislature to fix their problems. For one thing, no definition is given for "value". It is probably NOT the cost, but somehow someone is supposed to figure how much the value of the house has increased from the work. But if no public body gets notice of the work, who will make the determination of where the limit is? If the work is done in two calendar years, i.e. a project started in December and completed in February, the "value" of the project could be $70,000- hardly a "minor improvement" as defined in the measure. It calls for inspection of electrical work if a licensed electrician doesn't do the work, but again, who will enforce that? Plus, no licensed electrician will inspect the work of another if he has to then assume all the liability, as the measure calls for. Homeowners, family members, renters, subsequent buyers, etc.- lots of folks will be put in harms way if this passes.
2:39 p.m.
Oct 21, '08
Eric Parker:
Not necessarily true. What if someone did some of this work on their own, didn't follow safety codes, and then rented the place to you?
What if the place next door does work like this and causes a sewer backup or leak that ends up in your place?
What if you were at a friend's house who just built a large deck and it collapsed while you guys were standing on it because it wasn't built to code?
Things like this affect all of us whether we are a renter or home owner.
2:40 p.m.
Oct 21, '08
Joel,
I think you must be partly confusing me with someone else, as "my industry" doesn't have anything to do with construction.
You haven't provided me with any reason to think that the permit system is "just anything." As a historian (my "industry," in part) I have a lot of reason to think that it's developed over time in response to good reasons for thinking there's a need by people who've put some thought into what they were doing on a knowledgeable basis, in a process involving debate in which trade-offs would have been considered.
Over time conditions may change and some permitting might not be relevant to current methods. Over time accretion of regulations may produce useless redundancies (as opposed to well thought protective ones), unnecessary complexities and needless expenses. It may be that case that rules designed for one type of community are being applied in other places where they make much less sense.
The way to go about addressing that is with systematic analysis and not pulling some arbitrary number of dollars out of the air governing circumstances when permitting should apply and when not.
My wordiness may have obscured the point, but the story about the corner near my childhood house wasn't mainly about people blowing stop signs. It was about the direction without the stop signs and the lack of caution of people approaching the intersection despite the lack of good sight lines.
You seem to me to exaggerate the degree of trust we can put on people's caution and good sense in the absence of some regulatory guidance that introduces predictability. I would also posit that this problem becomes greater in situations where population is larger and denser, meaning both a) larger absolute number of less cautious people (it's not just proportion that matters) and b) more interactions in which they may be involved or have an effect. Just my opinion, though.
Oct 21, '08
The Home Depot story is a fake. The truth is Sizemore got caught doing massive home improvements on his property without a permit. He got mad and decided he ought to be etitled to do whatever he wanted on his own place.
3:14 p.m.
Oct 21, '08
One other thought about how Sizemore's effort to keep the bad ol' gubmint out of our hair may screw me. If I ever sell my house and buy another, I'm going to have to contend with the possibility--if M63 passes--that the previous owner removed a load-bearing wall or something.
Sizemore's mania for individual rights is terrible for other individuals.
Oct 21, '08
Steve Bucknam says:
Steve, remember it's a Sizemore measure. They are all a total mess. All of them. Period.Oct 21, '08
Chris: Yes, I'm sorry, I was confusing you with someone else with regard to the industry.
The way to go about addressing that is with systematic analysis and not pulling some arbitrary number of dollars out of the air governing circumstances when permitting should apply and when not.
I agree with this. The same thing is true about the roads you were referring to: obviously the whole system there was poorly planned & could have been set up to prevent accidents. However, I think there are a lot of entrenched interests benefitting from the permitting process, and the process doesn't obviously help anything, (but maybe it's obvious to you) and since a lot of repair work, probably the majority, right now is unpermitted, under the radar, the world certainly isn't going to end without building permits.
Jeff: Regardless of the passage of this measure, you have to contend with that possibility right now. But thanks for illustrating my point about the false sense of security the process provides.
Oct 21, '08
Sheesh. I always re-read my comments and wish I could edit them. I meant that the process doesn't obviously help more than it hurts. Of course it helps some things.
Oct 22, '08
It doesn't matter WHO started this measure. What matters is what they're trying to do. So, if I want to put a bedroom off the end of my house, without permits, under 35K, this measure says I can do that? So, I can build this bedroom without proper foundation, set the walls in 2 x 4 studs with no headers for windows, windows can be more than 42 inches from floor to sill, electrical can be aluminum wire, floor can be 1/4 ply with no sub, ect. And nobody holds me accountable for any of this? And when I want to sell the house, I'm supposed to mention all this to the realtor and prospective buyers? Like I'm honest enough to do that? If I'm going to take these kinds of shortcuts and put everyone in danger then I'm not going to tell others what I did? Get real, people. Putting up a fence can be done safely and without permits, in some cases, but putting a room addition, remodeling your kitchen, adding a garage has to be done right and accounted for. Buy the permits. Do it right. Protect yourself and those around you. Permits aren't that expensive. If you have 30K for the work you can spend a few hundred of it for permits and code inspections.
Oct 22, '08
Eric Parker- Do you rent from someone who owns your dwelling? If so, this measure effects your landlord and you by consequence.
Oct 23, '08
"I had to pull a permit to move a downspout on my gutters."
Incorrectly installing downspouts can lead to significant erosion and structural damage to your home by undermining your foundation. If the installation is on your property line it can do the same for your neighbor's home.
In the jurisdictions where I worked minor projects that didn't include structural engineering, like downspouts, fences and decks below four feet high, were covered by an over-the-counter permit that took about ten minutes to obtain.
I'm trying to figure out how the permit system benefited me to the detriment of my customers. I know I had to spend hours down at the building department guiding projects through the process that I'd rather be spending building things, but then I also felt that hours spent in line at Home Depot were also hours lost forever in the hourglass of time. Maybe Sizemore ought to float a ballot measure mandating that Home Depot hire more cashiers so people will have less time to idle and complain about permits...
Just as an aside, aren't we glad that all those Measure 37 developments didn't spring up like mushrooms? Imagine the credit crunch leaving Oregon's landscape dotted with the shells of condos half-built on roads we can't afford to build...
Oct 23, '08
Ron, the process benefited you because your customers hired you partly for your knowledge of the permit process. That's not the primary reason they hired you, of course -- I'm sure you do excellent work -- but the permit process must have contributed somewhat, especially for small jobs.
<h2>I might add that incorrectly installing downspouts with permit in hand can also lead to erosion. Does Eugene really have a staff of downspout inspectors?</h2>