What message does this send? YOUR OPINION COUNTS!

[Joe Farsetta]

I'll go one better.

The Chair of the HI Advisory Board is also a member of the PE Licensing Board for NY...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I'll go one better.

The Chair of the HI Advisory Board is also a member of the PE Licensing Board for NY...

Keep talking, Joe. Pretty soon you are going to convince me that licensing is not such a good thing, after all. I mean, if we as citizens, cannot trust our politicians to make the correct choices for members of our profession...who can we trust?

Would not this attempt, as blatant as it is, to utilize his position for personal gain, not qualify as "corruption" and an Attorney General investigation?

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by dpeterson

Manny,



Who ever stated that a home inspector's price has to be "much more reasonable" than an engineer?

If an engineer, (be it a chemical or structural, as long as they are a registered professional engineer) wants to conduct home inspections (not engineering evaluations) the fees should be about the same.

This is an interpretation by you and not a fact.

Donald,

Are you suggesting that in addition to Home Inspections being licensed and controlled that the fee structures should also be regulated? Have you not heard of "Adding Value" (or perceived value) to a service? I have no idea what your background is, nor do I really care! I will tell you that with your concept I would certainly never hire a "Home Inspector". If I can hire a Professional Engineer, versed and experienced in all of the aspects of the building trades, for the same amount I would pay a "Home Inspector" I certainly would not hire a "Home Inspector"!! Why would I want to???

By virtue of a Professional Engineers extensive training, experiences and (many times) more difficult to attain license(s) (as compared to a Home Inspector's license requirements) they add a value (or perceived value) to their service. If you were building a custom home would you pay more for the seasoned, well respected builder or would you try to save money by using a new builder who was a framer and decided to become a General Contractor? The added value is the experienced builder supposedly knows more, experienced more, can provide more, and has more to lose if they fail building your home?

So my statement is a fact of "competition" and economics and not just an opinion. Of course your statement is "your opinion" and we are all entitled to them.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Keep talking, Joe. Pretty soon you are going to convince me that licensing is not such a good thing, after all. I mean, if we as citizens, cannot trust our politicians to make the correct choices for members of our profession...who can we trust?

Would not this attempt, as blatant as it is, to utilize his position for personal gain, not qualify as "corruption" and an Attorney General investigation?

James,

Are you being facetious?? Was that an oxymoron using the words "politician" and "trust" (and even inferring trusting a politician) in the same sentence?

The problem is how much influence does the "Fox" have when they have to answer why they raided the hen house?? Inspectors know this is a very bad situation all around. Unfortunately they are a very small minority. When those trying to run the show start screaming it is a "consumer protection" measure then the Inspectors will be left out in the cold regardless of how unethical it might be.
</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

[klott]

Originally Posted by escanlan

James,

Are you being facetious?? Was that an oxymoron using the words "politician" and "trust" (and even inferring trusting a politician) in the same sentence?

The problem is how much influence does the "Fox" have when they have to answer why they raided the hen house?? Inspectors know this is a very bad situation all around. Unfortunately they are a very small minority. When those trying to run the show start screaming it is a "consumer protection" measure then the Inspectors will be left out in the cold regardless of how unethical it might be.
</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

Therein lies the problem, if all of the inspectors regardless of affiliation to a particular org., would stop this senseless squabbaling then we would not be a minority, and we could control our own destiny! If not, we will be rolled over. IMHO

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by klott

Therein lies the problem, if all of the inspectors regardless of affiliation to a particular org., would stop this senseless squabbaling then we would not be a minority, and we could control our own destiny! If not, we will be rolled over. IMHO

Do you mean like...say...a "coalition"?

[klott]

No, we just need to stand together on some issues. Then we can split again.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by klott

Therein lies the problem, if all of the inspectors regardless of affiliation to a particular org., would stop this senseless squabbaling then we would not be a minority, and we could control our own destiny! If not, we will be rolled over. IMHO

Kenneth,

If all, or the vast majority, of the Inspectors in this country would unite we would still be a minority as compared to politicians, RE Agents/Brokers, possibly even licensed Engineers. However, even that small minority can have their voice heard and make an impact with unified actions. It is certainly a noble idea and maybe someday it will happen.

By the way, there are probably more licensed RE Agents/Brokers in the state of Texas than there are Home Inspectors in this country!! What a scary thought!

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I'll go one better.

The Chair of the HI Advisory Board is also a member of the PE Licensing Board for NY...

That is your best defence.............

Conflict of interest, if you can pick one particular point and focus on it you can put enough doubt in the legislators minds to question it.

[Joe Farsetta]

Peter,

THAT's the problem...

"Housekeeping" amendments are being suggested, and the legislature sees and votes on none of it.

[kmiller1]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Here in NY, the HI Advisory Board has crafted a draft COE. The following verbiage is taken directly from it:

"Home inspectors are not permitted to make any statements or comments concerning the adequacy or soundness of the home, it structure or systems and are not permitted to provide engineering or architectural services."

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WE WANT INPUT FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ON THIS.

a Are you comfortable with this language?
Yes or no
b. Will this statement cause your clients concern about the value you bring to the home inspection process?
Yes or no
c. Do you think this statement will cause harm to your business?
Yes or no
d. Do you think this statement will make it more difficult for you to be successful in the home inspection business?
Yes or no
e. Do you think this statement will help professional engineers get more home inspection business?
Yes or no
f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
Yes or no
g. Do you think professional engineers could use this mandated language to help them increase their market share of home inspections?
Yes or no


OTHER COMENTARY IS WELCOME. FOR US, HERE IN NY, THE SITUATION IS VERY REAL, AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED

No,Yes,yes,yes,yes,no,yes

Crappy wording. Try to kill that right away

[jbreazeale]

Answers to the questions: NYYYYNY
Joe, sounds like a little help from an informed and influential media person may bring to the public's attention the gross conflict of interest ingrained within this proposal. Get somebody in the Big Town on your side. The public will hardly notice, and the snakes won't crawl back under their rocks unless somebody sticks a camera in their faces. This idea is so rediculous, and so restrictive to the whole home inspection process and intent, that just a little exposure would likely send the authors scurrying in all directions looking for cover. If you think about it, it seems that they have already planned a convienient "out" for themselves. Like, if we pull it off, great...if we get caught, it was just a simple mistake in semantics, and of course we will fix it forthwith. It's bad enough already that the NAR has so much influence and control. It would be terrible if this can of worms gets loose.

Speaking of coalitions, it would definitely have an effect if HI organizations could pull this off, come up with a unified effort, and propose a legislative model for all states, instead of having to fight these state-by-state battles over and over, year in and year out. Bushart, I know you's agin' it, but think about this: If you were a p**s poor inspector, and you knew it, you'd be against licensing. I say once again, licensing is coming to us all eventually. Bad licensing laws need to be prevented, but that's easier to do when one has a reasonable alternative in hand. Even better if it were the result of a unified effort.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbreazeale

If you were a p**s poor inspector, and you knew it, you'd be against licensing.

Nothing could be more false.

P-iss poor inspectors are the first to show up at the bargaining table proposing "grandfathering". The newby p-iss poor inspectors are there pushing for the NHIE and a fee. Either of these options immediately provide the p-iss poor inspector with (a) instant statewide recognition, and (2) immediate equality with his most experienced competitors.

There is the ironic and humorous account of the senator in New Jersey who became adamant toward HI licensing after a $100,000 expense he claims was left to him by a p-iss poor inspector. He wrote the law, it passed and was signed by the governor. Thanks to the grandfathering clause, the very first license issued under that new law was given to...yep...the p-iss poor inspector who inspected his house and created the havoc. This guy is the poster child for the slogan "Licensing solves nothing."

Proponents of legislation have tried to create a myth that opponents to their attempts are fighting them out of fear from accountability or because they are "p-iss poor inspectors". Maybe a few of them are, for there are p-iss poor everythings everywhere, but the case against legislation is best illustrated by what you are reading in this thread. Very good...very experienced...very qualified home inspectors are being threatened right out of existence who have otherwise flourished prior to the enactment of this law.

As stated several times, once the control of your business leaves your hands and falls into the hands of the state, you are forever...and that means ALWAYS...at the mercy of those who will be interpretting this law in the days, months and years to come. New York is a great lesson for all of us.

No, sir. P-iss poor inspectors love licensing...but that is for another thread. Here, we are dealing with a law that has already passed and those unfortunate enough to fall under it are at the mercy of those administering it. What is left, here, is to turn chicken s-hit into chicken salad...and quick.

[Joe Farsetta]

Bump.

Please respond to the poll.

[John McKenna]

Soundness - a state or condition free from damage or decay.

Adequacy - The state or quality of being adequate,
proportionate, or sufficient; a sufficiency for a particular
purpose; as, the adequacy of supply to the expenditure.

(the above difinitions may have nothing to do with
what the lawyers say they mean)

Texas has similar language in its SOP that is intended to
keep the home inspector in the realm of only making
comments about repair items, and not offering opinions
beyond their expertise. Keep them as generalist, whatever
that means???

Of coarse if the inspector goes to court, they will fry his
hiney on the grill for not reporting every "unsound" and
"inadequate" item.

On the other hand... I can see how they do not want
"Johnny Fix-it" offering opinions about the adequacy
of the HVAC system, when he can't even understand
the label on the unit....

or offering opinions on how much sag in the roof is
"good enough"...

or offering opinions on how much movement the
foundation is allowed to be accepted as "tolerable"...

And thus the need to bring in the experts to finish the
equation about items beyond "Johnny Fix-it's" ability
to analyze.

I believe most states still look at home inspectors as
"Johnny Fix-it", which in many cases is very true.

But, let the idiot show up in court and his little "expert"
hiney is ground beef.

It's a catch 22 either way.

My solution (for me): the best defence is a good offense.
I inspect hard and recommend "qualified Professionals
inspect and repair" all items listed for repair.

Regarding ulterior motives in creating the language of
the law... that's why they had to create the word
"conspiracy". Its as old as time.