legislation pros and cons

[tdutt]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Yes, I have. Doctor said that the scars from my frontal lobotomy should be gone just in time for next legislative session.

So you're the kind of inspector my friend was refering to. When he was taking me out on the ride-alongs he used to say, "In order to have any competition we'd have to gain 50 pounds and have a full frontal lobotomy!"

I'm just kidding around James (though he actually did say that when I asked how difficult it was to break into inspecting!). I appreciate the good natured sparring over the issue.

[Joe Farsetta]

To my Canadian Friends, surely you know that James is at his sarcastic best.

Government control of everything is socialistic, and the good old US is not a socialistic society. Take medicine, for example. Socialistic medicine exists in several countries around the world, and everyone knows how f- upped the US health care system is. Yet, sick people still flock to the US for treatments and services. Go figure.

Now to home inspections orgs. You really think that licensing HIs in Canada is going to end one association's influence? You've got to be kidding. For you, the answer is to cut the balls off of those associations perverting their influence in order to control an industry. Their motovation is one of money and power. The consumer is secondary.

As to HI licensing in the US, I'd like to see the data where, even in a single instance, the consumer has benefitted from it. I'd like to see the preliminary data where licensing was actually needed. Where are the piles of complaints of HIs fleecing their clients? Where are the records of how many HIs are operatng in an area? Where is the data showing that HIs in one area or another are not trained? I'll tell you where... NOWHERE.

HI licensing, itself, is part of an agenda of control by one particular association in the US, and probably Canada, as well. Its about control, increased profits, and thinning the herd.

These are home inspections, not brain surgery. Licensing never ensured a client of anything. States interested in the prospect of licensing should start with a simple plan of registration. Then they should set up a system of receiving and investigating consumer complaints, not realtor complaints; Limit it to actual consumers. Give it a 3-year period, with the 1st for getting us registered. If your not registered, you cant inspect.

After the time period, analyze the data and make recommendations; are controls needed at this time, and if so, which ones will immprove the situation. Like I said, one size doesnt fit all. Oh, by the way, it would be nice if HIs had a mechanism in this project to report unscrupulous and predatory and harassing behavior of some real estate agents and brokers.

Just a thought, before handing over common sense to the government.

Funny how no one ever suggests registration as a first step. Its like going to the doctor and asking for chemotherapy because your dying, even before he has had the opportunity to draw a single vial of blood for a simple test. The first determination is whether the current system is broken or sick. The second step is determining the best course of treatment, once an illness has been diagnosed.

"The operation was a success, but the patient died". Ths is what governmental involvement almost always guarantees. In medicine, and in Home Inspections.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

In regards to socialized medicine, when Hillary was attempting her version of the "Great Society", a friend of mine in the health care profession coined a phrase... "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free".

That is to say, yes, no home inspector licensing.

[rwand1]

Now to home inspections orgs. You really think that licensing HIs in Canada is going to end one association's influence? You've got to be kidding. For you, the answer is to cut the balls off of those associations perverting their influence in order to control an industry. Their motovation is one of money and power. The consumer is secondary.

And how do you do that without licencing? You can't because the self regulating bodies up here have no intent to govern according to the rules. I have experienced it first hand and continue to experience it. They bend the rules, conspire, and withold vital info from the members by restricting access to BOD minutes and relevent financial info. Without outside oversight there is no guarantee things are on the up and up.

Just as the Ontario association just recently retained a former President of the New Home Warranty program to lobby the provincial government for licencing. As far as I know the membership was not consulted to the hiring or expenditure for this person fees. It was all decided behind closed doors without consultation of the membership.

As to licencing you can be sure in Ontario OAHI will want its cake and eat it too. NACHI and others must be vigilant.

[rwand1]

I guess that is why more and more Americans are going to India and Thailand to have their operations. Why because you can go have an operation in those countries by American Board Cert. Surgeons at a third of the cost for the same operation in the USA or Canada.

To those detractors of licencing you keep telling us all the negatives but I have yet to see a logical alternative as it applies to Canada.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rwand1

I guess that is why more and more Americans are going to India and Thailand to have their operations. Why because you can go have an operation in those countries by American Board Cert. Surgeons at a third of the cost for the same operation in the USA or Canada.

To those detractors of licencing you keep telling us all the negatives but I have yet to see a logical alternative as it applies to Canada.

The illogic behind a government solution to the Canadian argument is this...

What will you do when the government appoints a David Bottoms-like (or similar) representative to run your HI Board? And now, instead of being simply a pain in the keester, his word has the backing of law with the threat of shutting down your entire business. Over the course of time, it is destined to happen and there is nothing you can do...once the law is in effect...to change it.

But then, this is not a Canadian thread....there are more issues on the table than the Canadian desire for government control over their lives.

[gbeaumont]

Hi to all,

here are my thoughts on licensing, and before I start I am happy to admit that I have flip-flopped on this issue over the last few years, and I do still find myself left with something of a paradox.

Firstly lets look at who wants licensing and why:

• Home inspectors: These appear to fall into 2 camps, those who genuinely believe that our business is under-performing and causing problems, and those who see it as a way to protect their own businesses by limiting competition.
• Real Estate Community: Again seem to fall into variou camps, those who believe we are poorly trained "deal killers" who are incompetent feel that we need licensing to protect their clients, and those who see licensing as a way of mandating insurance requirements as a way of limiting or passing on a portion of their own liability.
• Builders/Developers: I have never understood really why they even have a dog in this race as the % of inspections that are done related to new construction is minute, I can see that if they wished to employ us to help with their own QA that they would require inspectors to have attained code certifications, but that is outside of the scope of what most inspectors do/want to do. asthey own the property up to closing our involvement is their choice.
• Financial Institutions: Other than some small interests these entities do not use our services for anything other than basic assett verification, which has always surprised me as arguably they have the most at stake. I have never yet heard of these groups lobbying for regulation of our industry.
• Consumer Groups: Again I am not aware of any regional or national consumer group pushing for legislation of our business, which strongly suggests that they are not recieving complaints over inspections.
• Legislators: I am not aware of any State that has looked into licensing based on complaints recieved from a disgruntled public, if anyone knows of one I would be pleased to hear of it.

So if the above can be held to be accurate (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) lets look at the pro & cons of licensing from the same interest groups.

• Home Inspectors: With only 1 exeption that I am aware of licensing has expanded the number of home inspectors in any given area increasing competition and reducing pricing (this arguement is also supported by research done by Ms Swanby on behalf of ASHI). licensing has proven to be a conciderable leveller when all HI's are required to maintain the same level of percieved competance under licensing.
• Real Estate Community: Their own figures do not show that licensing has improoved either the reality or their perception of Home inspector quality (see the Ohio study, with 65% of agents citing inadeqaute reports in 10% or less of transactions in both licensed and unlicensed states, and 70% of agents reporting no difference in later reported problems missed by the home inspector) Yet 80% of agents in licensed states percieve that licensing has been beneficial. WHY??
• Builder/Developers: No data exists that I am aware of that gives this community any opinion about our industry in either licensed or unlicensed states, nor is there any data that supprts that licensed HI's do more new construction inspection in licensed states than others, as I asked above I don't know why (other than to voice an opinion they are even interested)
• Financial Institutions: Again ther is no data that I can find anywhere that shows that the banking or insurance markets benefit from licensing.
• Consumer Groups: Againno know data from public interest groups, although funnily enough several of these groups are advocates for all homes to be inspected by our industry regardless of being in licensed or unlicensed states, particlulary when dealing with complaints against the construction industry (does anyone see a corrolation here?)
• Legislators: here is the big one there is no data that I can find from any state or licensing body anywhere that shows either that licensing was required to protect the public interest, or that having enacted licensing that the standards of inspection improved.

On the last comment here is an interesting statistic from TREC (the oldest regulated state) in 2005 roughly 300,000 residential properties changed hands yet the commision only deal with (or took action against) 8 home inspectors.

Given that we believe that we have around 85% market penetration of "used" homes, and at best 10% of new homes are inspected the % of complaints is inconsequential. If on average we get to inspet 50% of all property that equates to 0.0005% which is statistically nonsense.

Now here is my paradox, I do fundamentally believe that all potential home inspectors should be required to demonstrate a minimum level of competance before hanging out their shingle, and if they are unable to do so then they should be required to complete sufficient Primary education to ensure that they meet that standard of minimum competence, I also believe that continuing education is a great benefit to all inspectors and in the best interests of the general public.

As Joe F stated in another thread, all of the above can be achieved through regulation rather than licensing (which has a huge associated cost ($650,000 in FL)) Should it be proven that there is a problem under say 3 years of regulation then by all means write a full licensing act to address those issues.

Regards

Gerry

[Carla Horne]

Gerry,
as usual coming from you, that is a great post!

the part of your paradox that I will add to is relative to not being
competent, I say if the inspector is not, they will not stay in
business.
I do believe that at least 80% of all initiation of licensing stems from
the competition for power between professional organizations, and has
nothing to do with protecting the consumer.

CJ

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by chorne

licensing has.......nothing to do with protecting the consumer.

Never a truer statement made. Consumer protection is always an easy sell to legislators who wish to look good in the eyes of their constituents. Perhaps on some levels, some entring the business after licensing may appear to be more qualified, but the truth is never known until the inspector actually has to impart his knowledge in the field. The inspectors in my area that are licensed operate the same way they did prior to licensing.

Gerry's comments on licensing are right on target.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Gerry,

Great post, no other organization has leaders that understand and share just how detrimental licensing is to their members, thanks for your efforts.

Joe.

[Doug Edwards]

Registration has been FAPHI's position since its inception. (as the first alternative after "do nothing")
www.faphi.org

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by dedwards

Registration has been FAPHI's position since its inception. (as the first alternative after doing nothing)
www.faphi.org

Amen brother

Regards

Gerry

[rwand1]

James opined...

The illogic behind a government solution to the Canadian argument is this...

What will you do when the government appoints a David Bottoms-like (or similar) representative to run your HI Board? And now, instead of being simply a pain in the keester, his word has the backing of law with the threat of shutting down your entire business. Over the course of time, it is destined to happen and there is nothing you can do...once the law is in effect...to change it.

But then, this is not a Canadian thread....there are more issues on the table than the Canadian desire for government control over their lives.

But James that is exactly what appears to be the case. Mr. Bottoms is at the helm and being abetted by some in the membership and by all appearances the BOD. This is what happens without outside oversite.
It is happening in Ontario and I am the poster boy.

Reality is the public is lead to believe that licenced is an assurance that someone is qualified et cetera.

[Brian E. Kelly]

I believe the Ohio study quoted showed that a larger percentage of homes get inspected in Licensed states. PRO

The Ohio study also pointed out that there was no way to know exactly how many Home Inspectors there are in states with out licensing as there is no way to track that which is not tracked. Hmmmm, so for anyone to say the number of HI's increased is just making that up.

The inspectors answering the questionnaire in the Ohio study thought the NACHI online test was not too good. Not relevant to this discussion, but amusing nonetheless.

Licensing makes HI associations less relevant.

Non licensing also has nothing to do with protecting the consumer

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

I believe the Ohio study quoted showed that a larger percentage of homes get inspected in Licensed states. PRO

The Ohio study also pointed out that there was no way to know exactly how many Home Inspectors there are in states with out licensing as there is no way to track that which is not tracked. Hmmmm, so for anyone to say the number of HI's increased is just making that up.

The inspectors answering the questionnaire in the Ohio study thought the NACHI online test was not too good. Not relevant to this discussion, but amusing nonetheless.

Licensing makes HI associations less relevant.

Non licensing also has nothing to do with protecting the consumer

Brian,

you know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics

Interestingly 55% of the real estate community in none licensed states believe that inspections protect them, whereas in licensed states that jumps to 67%. Cause or effect?

Regards

Gerry