City Inspector - Level The Playing Field?

We are bidding a job in San Antonio and when I met the building inspector for the preliminary inspection, he rejected our plan to go over the existing roof. He stated several times that "It is my job to provide a level playing field for roofers."

While it may be semantics, his job is to enforce building code, period! It seems like he thinks his job is to force us to tear the existing roof off simply because local roofers will have to.

Roofguy Said: I dont want to be dictated to by a bureaucratic-minded failed former contractor who doesnt grasp the limits of his authority, B)

If that is the case, then you must know the law better than he does. Never ask a cop what the law is. He won't know. He follows policy.

seen-it-all Said:

There is also a distinction between learning and doing. Money tends to affect this distinction.

Seems to me I see a lot of "trainees" doing all of the work and wheeler dealers handling the money.

Most of my work is in reroofing so I am always having to repair work that was never done right. On the small amount of new work I do, I am always having a run in with the other trades. I once showed an old codger carpenter how to run the siding behind my flashing kickout on a wall. I came back later and he totally ignored my instructions. He just said, "we'll caulk it". Yeah, right...

I guess it boils down to this: After 35 years in the roofing business, I don't want to be dictated to by a bureaucratic-minded failed former contractor who doesn't grasp the limits of his authority, and whose ego is fragile. B)

natty Said:

I tell you-construction trades have gone to pot. Nobody is learning anything anymore.

Depends where you are located. In B.C. a carpenter needs 5000 hours of on the job training plus 4 years at school (6 weeks each time) to get his "red seal" qualification. An electrician needs 6000 hours and 4 years (10 weeks each time) to get his red seal qualification plus work another year and do another code course to be able to pull a permit.

There is also a distinction between learning and doing. Money tends to affect this distinction.

Building inspection is also stringent here with a fee paid based on cost which allows only so many inspections. If your work fails you have to pay for re inspection which is not cheap. Does it cost lots to build here, yes, but everything is done to code or it does not pass. If you protest, they slap on a stop work order and if you continue on they will place a charge on your land title so it shows up if you go to sell. If it is a safety issue the City will bring in its own workers and remove the offending structure and bill your property tax account. A simple sun deck permit will take you about 6-8 weeks to obtain. You need a site survey done, plans, listing of contractors and subs so they can check on business licences, inspection on footings before pouring, framing inspection, final inspection. You just don't throw up a sundeck here anymore. Your permit (big yellow card) has to be visible from the street so if it is not there, a do gooder will probably report you. Our taxes are high to support the bureaucracy, that seems to multiply like rabbits, and we end up with a sterile looking community as a result.

tinner666 Said: If we have to pay the fee, I want it inspected, at least to constructively complete standards. I seldom see a completed roof the manufacturer will warrant. Very seldom. :(

What you want is the city to be accountable for its inspections. That ain't going to happen. The Building Code itself puts a giant disclaimer right up front stating that the city will put forth the effort to enforce the Code but makes no guarantees.

Just the other day, I went out to dry in an addition. The framer did a crap job decking. He had used a piece less than 2 feet right in the middle of the roof, did not put in enough nails over the entire deck, and used scraps turned the wrong way. Anybody else would have roofed right over that crap-I see it everyday when I do a tear off. But I got onto the general contractor and he made them put in braces under the scraps. It wasn't the right way to do it, but at least the deck won't be sagging 10 years down the line. I still had to add the nailing because they did not understand that ends are suppose to have at least 9 nails minimum. And what is so hard about setting rafters on 24" centers? I can't believe the scabs they had to add. I tell you-construction trades have gone to pot. Nobody is learning anything anymore.

egg Said: but its frustrating to watch people grapple with a new concept when they are in the middle of making a decision right now... Policy and the Comfort Zone doing their deadly dance together.

Just WOW and AMEN !

natty Said:

tinner666 Said: I got tired of paying for building permits and my roofs, and the jacklegs roofs not being insoected.

What is there to inspect? If there are any defects, they are now covered up and the city sure cant vouch for poor workmanship. When you fill out the application for the permit, you are suppose to detail the scope of work. All they can do is take your word for it. But a public record is now established for the future when the property is sold or problems arise. [quote]

You think a glance won't tell if new flashing was used? Valley shingles bobbed? pipe collars installed 50/50+-? Term flashing terminated correctly? Lift a shingle enough to determine the nail placement/pattern? Buckled shingles? Stagger 6"+-? Et-al?

Framing inspcetion checks for nail size, placement/pattern, subfloor layout, plywood placement, corner bracing, et-al.

I feel that if a 'roofer'?? put on the crap I see and immediately had to tear it off and do it again the same day, we'd start getting roofers and the jacklegs will leave. You want to know something? I inspect new roofs when asked. Some pass. Some have to be torn off and redone. I will call a spade a spade. I make my living repairing roofs, same as Chuck. Jacklegs make me money, BUT it's ALL at the Homeowner's expense, which really galls me to no end. Last month, it was a $35,000.00 copper roof. The homeowner wasn't too happy to say the least.

:( OK, rant over. If we have to pay the fee, I want it inspected, at least to 'constructively complete' standards. I seldom see a completed roof the manufacturer will warrant. Very seldom. :(

tinner666 Said: I got tired of paying for building permits and my roofs, and the jacklegs roofs not being insoected.

What is there to inspect? If there are any defects, they are now covered up and the city sure can't vouch for poor workmanship. When you fill out the application for the permit, you are suppose to detail the scope of work. All they can do is take your word for it. But a public record is now established for the future when the property is sold or problems arise.

Some cities in N. Texas don't require a permit for roofing but most do. The City of Dallas requires a permit and the only "inspection" is proof of where you dumped the trash.

Being for self-sufficiency and small government is a really hard concept to explain. You either get it and realize that you don't get to pick & choose where big government is ok, or you don't.

That's kinda how we got to the problem we have with Congress. Everyone thinks that all the congressmen are corrupt, except theirs.

Roofguy Said: The roof in question has gravel, meaning wed take off 250 lbs/SQR and put back on 125. Weight not a factor. There is no trapped moisture, in fact there is no insulation and a very solid concrete deck. Absolutely no legitimate reason to tear that roof off.

Cause for concern: 1. Removing the ballast would increase the possibility of membrane uplift and tear, and 2. There is ALWAYS trapped moisture;

Therefore, a tear off and new membrane would assure better attachment to the substrate.

Building permits .. sure .. they are very necessary in order to ensure that someone who really does know something about building looks at the work .. if it's substandard? .. Well, then lets tear it down and fix it right.

The fee has more to do with paying for the city/county administrative costs, than it does anything else .. surely you don't think cities and counties are turning a profit on the fees do you? .. If they did, no one would be building anything for the expense of it all.

People, by and large, aren't really very bright when it comes right down to building something, like say, a house addition for instance .. the city/county are there to be sure things are done right, according to tried and true engineering specs .. and to protect the homeowner from himself and his ego .. also to protect the homeowners neighbors from the homeowners ego.

We can rail all day long about the permitting process, whether it's fair or not and so on and so forth .. the bottom line here is how would you feel if your neighbor built a home addition, only to have it's roof come off in a 40 mph wind storm, and have it land on top of your house? .. or, not having the deck secured properly enough to keep poor old 280 pound aunt Bertha from falling through it at the Sunday family get-together ..

I could go on, but I'm fairly sure you get my point. I think this was part of the topic. Don't want to high-jack the thread.

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

Tinner, it has never been about "protecting the consumer." Oh that is the mission statement, but not reality. It is about fees, protectionism, and the ever-expanding regulations to support the ever-expanding payroll of the ever-expanding building department.

My cynicism is admitted and well-entrenched. :unsure:

I got tired of paying for building permits and my roofs, and the jacklegs roofs not being insoected. Every time I finished a roof, I called and insisted on an inspection and insisted the inspector checked every detail on my roofs and compared them to specs. :) They decided that was too much trouble and now there are no fees, and no inspections. Go figure. :( I was trying to get rid of the jacklegs, but the departments weren't interested in protecting the consumer. :(

egg Said: We are bidding a job in San Antonio and when I met the building inspector for the preliminary inspection, he rejected our plan to go over the existing roof. He stated several times that It is my job to provide a level playing field for roofers.

While it may be semantics, his job is to enforce building code, period! It seems like he thinks his job is to force us to tear the existing roof off simply because local roofers will have to.

Tim, I read your subsequent posts and I find the logic impeccable but as annoyed as I get with inspectors from time to time I have sympathy for them in one respect. The wheels move very slowly around them. What you are introducing is a conceptual change and it comes after the job specification (what he callsthe level playing field) was established. What you are essentially asking for is an injunction to stop the bidding process and re-design the spec. Thats not an unreasonable request at all but a precipitous learning curve is too much for most people to handle on short notice.

I lost a $100k clay tile job a few years ago because, in this case, the construction manager couldnt see the difference between one layer of S/A underlayment directly penetrated by thousands of quicknails (long thick-guage wires with a 90 degree bend on the last inch, chopped on an angle that you punch through the membrane into the plywood substrate hooked into every tile) and a two-ply dry sheet with vertical straps screwed down every so often with every tile easily wired to the straps without penetrating anything. In my case the spec I put forward actually cost a little more but for a lifetime roof I know which one Id want on my house. My point is, nobody around here uses the strap system because they dont understand it and the learning curve is too much for them, roofers, inspectors, gcs, and constr. managers alike. I do ok and I can be persuasive most of the time, but its frustrating to watch people grapple with a new concept when they are in the middle of making a decision right now... Policy and the Comfort Zone doing their deadly dance together.

Egg-zactly! :-)

The owner and I are setting up a sting of sorts. I told him to let me know if a roofer calls soon after the inspector told us the roof has to come off. I strongly suspect that he is friends with a local roofer.

CIAK Said: Well, if people want to build substandard, I say let em have at it .. well just end up looking like the shanty towns of Mexico or Thailand .. , I am constantly amazed at just how few there are in this country that knows anything how to build something that wont fall down in 5 years.

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

My oldest "recover" roofs are 27 years old. I know of very few commercial roof systems that last that long, even if the existing roof was torn off. That is the counter-intuitiveness that is so hard for people to understand. There are retrofit system that will last far long than id you tear off and do TPO, BUR, EPDM, etc.

Just because it allows the building owner to keep a big wad of his money in his pocket, does not mean the roof is inferior.

Shantytown? Lubbock, Tx is not hardly a shantytown, yet the code inspection department is virtually nonexistent.